Quick Fix: Ginger Soy Stir-Fried Fish

posted in: News | 0

Linda Gassenheimer | Tribune News Service

A sweet and tangy sauce goes perfectly with the fish fillets in this quick stir-fried dinner. I added snow peas and red bell pepper along with microwaveable brown rice to complete this easy meal.

Here’s a tip for best stir-frying. Make sure your wok or skillet is hot and the oil sizzling before adding the ingredients. Once they are added let them sit for a few seconds. This gives the oil a chance to regain the heat after adding the cold ingredients.

HELPFUL HINTS:

Any type of fish fillet such as grouper, mahi mahi or snapper can be used instead of tilapia.

Four garlic cubes can be used instead of minced garlic.

Use the edge of a spoon for a quick way to peel ginger.

COUNTDOWN:

Prepare all ingredients.

Make rice and divide between two dinner plates.

Complete recipe.

SHOPPING LIST:

To buy: 1 package microwaveable brown rice to make 1 1/2-cups cooked, 3/4 pound tilapia or other white fish fillet, 1 container corn starch, 1 container no-salt-added chicken broth, 1 small bottle reduced-sodium soy sauce, 1 bottle sesame oil,1 container minced garlic, 1 piece fresh ginger, 1 bunch scallions, 1 package snow peas and 1 red bell pepper.

Staples: sugar, salt and black peppercorns.

Ginger Soy Stir-fried Fish

Recipe by Linda Gassenheimer

Microwave brown rice to make 1 1/2 cups cooked

3/4 pound tilapia or other white fish filet, cut to 2 inch pieces

1 1/2-tablespoons cornstarch, divided use

Salt and freshly ground black pepper

1/4 cup no-salt-added chicken broth

2 teaspoons reduced-sodium soy sauce

2 tablespoons sesame oil, divided use

2 teaspoons sugar

2 teaspoons minced garlic

2 tablespoons sliced ginger

2 scallions sliced

1 cup snow peas

1 cup sliced red bell pepper

Microwave brown rice according to package instructions. Measure 1 1/2-cups and save any remaining rice for another meal. Divide the rice in half and place on two dinner plates. Place 1 tablespoon cornstarch on a plate. Cut fish into 2-inch pieces and sprinkle with salt and pepper. Toss fish with cornstarch making sure all sides are coated. Set aside. Mix broth, soy sauce, 1 tablespoon sesame oil, sugar, minced garlic and remaining 1/2 tablespoon cornstarch together in a small bowl. Heat the remaining 1 tablespoons sesame oil in wok or large skillet. Add the ginger, half the scallions, snow peas and red bell pepper. Stir-fry for 1 minute. Add the fish and stir-fry 1 minute, making sure all sides of the fish touch the bottom of the pan. Pour in the sauce and cook for 1 minute. Remove from heat. Divide into two portions and spoon over the rice. Sprinkle with the remaining scallions.

Yield 2 servings.

Per serving: 535 calories (31 percent from fat), 18.2 g fat (3.7 g saturated, 7.1 g monounsaturated), 84 mg cholesterol, 41.1 g protein, 52.9 g carbohydrates, 4.9 g fiber, 280 mg sodium.

(Linda Gassenheimer is the author of over 30 cookbooks, including her newest, “The 12-Week Diabetes Cookbook.” Listen to Linda on www.WDNA.org and all major podcast sites. Email her at Linda@DinnerInMinutes.com.)

©2024 Tribune Content Agency, LLC

Can Missouri GOP remove candidate for governor with alleged KKK ties? Judge to decide

posted in: Politics | 0

Kacen Bayless | (TNS) The Kansas City Star

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — A Cole County judge will decide whether the Missouri Republican Party can block a candidate with alleged ties to the Ku Klux Klan from running for governor as a Republican.

Circuit Court Judge Cotton Walker held a one-day trial in Jefferson City on Thursday over a lawsuit from the state party seeking to remove the candidate, Darrell Leon McClanahan III, from the August ballot.

McClanahan, who resides in Milo, a small village in southwestern Vernon County, filed to run for governor as a Republican and paid his $500 filing fee in February. The state party has since disavowed McClanahan after a photo resurfaced online of him saluting in front of a burning cross next to a person who was wearing what appeared to be a hooded Ku Klux Klan robe.

The lawsuit names as defendants both McClanahan and Republican Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft, who is also running for governor. Walker did not immediately rule on the lawsuit on Thursday.

“The only reason…the party seeks to have him not on the ballot is his avowed membership and endorsement of Ku Klux Klan principles,” Lowell Pearson, an attorney for the party, said on Thursday.

The Missouri GOP argues in its lawsuit it has chosen to disassociate with McClanahan due to his “racism and antisemitism.” That decision, the party argues, is protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

Pearson also argued, relying on testimony from Miles Ross, the party’s executive director, that it would be “factually impossible” for the party to vet every single candidate before it accepts their filing fee.

David Roland, an attorney for McClanahan, on Thursday criticized the lawsuit as “political theater.” He argued that the party had opportunities to reject McClanahan’s filing fee but chose not to do so.

“They’ve chosen twice to associate with Mr. McClanahan. And the issue here today is No. 1, they regret that decision. And No. 2, they wish to make a political statement,” Roland said. “This is simply an effort to wave the flag and say, ‘we don’t want to be associated with people that we believe are anti-semites or racists.’”

Thursday’s trial comes just weeks before the final certification date for the August election on May 28. Unless Walker intervenes, McClanahan’s name would appear at the top of the ballot in the Republican primary for governor, according to the unofficial candidate filing list on the Missouri Secretary of State Office’s website.

The lawsuit from the state party includes examples of McClanahan’s racist past, including the photo of him saluting next to the burning cross, a social media post that includes a racial slur, social media posts “using Nazi imagery” and social media post that uses the phrase “White Power.”

But while the lawsuit argues the party did not know about McClanahan’s past, this is not the first time McClanahan has run for elected office as a Republican in Missouri.

The Anti-Defamation League in 2022 wrote about the photo of McClanahan in front of the burning cross after he ran an unsuccessful campaign for U.S. Senate.

McClanahan, in response last year, filed a more than $5 million defamation suit against the organization demanding that the article be removed. In court filings, McClanahan described himself as a “Pro-White man” who is “dedicated to traditional Christian values.”

He said in the lawsuit that he has never been a member of the KKK, but was instead provided an “Honorary 1-year membership” by a Missouri coordinator. McClanahan told The Star in a text message in March that he received an honorary 1-year membership to the League of the South — which the ADL condemns as a white supremacist group.

A federal magistrate judge tossed the lawsuit last year, finding that McClanahan did not sufficiently allege a claim against the organization.

“The Complaint itself reflects that Plaintiff holds the views ascribed to him by the ADL article, that is the characterization of his social media presence and views as antisemitic, white supremacist, anti-government, and bigoted,” the judge wrote in the order.

The push to remove McClanahan from the ballot comes as Missouri Republicans look to hold onto control of the governor’s office after Gov. Mike Parson terms out of office. The major Republican candidates include Ashcroft, Lt. Gov. Mike Kehoe, and Sen. Bill Eigel from Weldon Spring.

House Minority Leader Crystal Quade and businessman Mike Hamra are the two major Democratic candidates for governor.

——-

©2024 The Kansas City Star. Visit at kansascity.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Though noncitizens can vote in few local elections, GOP goes big to make it illegal

posted in: News | 0

Matt Vasilogambros | (TNS) Stateline.org

Preventing people who are not United States citizens from casting a ballot has reemerged as a focal point in the ongoing Republican drive to safeguard “election integrity,” even though noncitizens are rarely involved in voter fraud.

Ahead of November’s presidential election, congressional and state Republican lawmakers are aiming to keep noncitizens away from the polls. They’re using state constitutional amendments and new laws that require citizenship verification to vote. Noncitizens can vote in a handful of local elections in several states, but already are not allowed to vote in statewide or federal elections.

Some Republicans argue that preventing noncitizens from casting ballots — long a boogeyman in conservative politics — reduces the risk of fraud and increases confidence in American democracy. But even some on the right think these efforts are going too far, as they churn up anti-immigration sentiment and unsupported fears of widespread fraud, all to boost turnout among the GOP base.

While Republican congressional leaders want to require documentation proving U.S. citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections, voters in at least four states will decide on ballot measures in November that would amend their state constitutions to clarify that only U.S. citizens can vote in state and local elections.

Over the past six years, Alabama, Colorado, Florida, Louisiana, North Dakota and Ohio have all amended their state constitutions.

In Kentucky — which along with Idaho, Iowa and Wisconsin is now considering a constitutional amendment — noncitizens voting will not be tolerated, said Republican state Sen. Damon Thayer, who voted in February to put the amendment on November’s ballot. Five Democrats between the two chambers backed the Republican-authored legislation, while 16 others dissented.

“There is a lot of concern here about the Biden administration’s open border policies,” Thayer, the majority floor leader, told Stateline. “People see it on the news every day, with groups of illegals pouring through the border. And they’re combined with concerns on election integrity.”

U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson expressed similar concerns last month when he announced new legislation — despite an existing 1996 ban— that would make it illegal for noncitizens to vote in federal elections. During a trip to Florida to meet with former President Donald Trump, the Louisiana Republican said it’s common sense to require proof of citizenship.

“It could, if there are enough votes, affect the presidential election,” he said, standing in front of Trump in the presumptive presidential nominee’s Mar-a-Lago resort. “We cannot wait for widespread fraud to occur, especially when the threat of fraud is growing with every single illegal immigrant that crosses that border.”

That rhetoric is rooted in a fear about how the U.S. is changing demographically, becoming more diverse as the non-white population increases, said longtime Republican strategist Mike Madrid. Though this political strategy has worked to galvanize support among GOP voters in the past, he questions whether this will be effective politically in the long term.

“There’s no problem being solved here,” said Madrid, whose forthcoming book,“The Latino Century,” outlines the group’s growing voter participation. “This is all politics. It’s all about stoking fears and angering the base.”

Noncitizens are voting in some elections around the country, but not in a way that many might think.

Where noncitizens vote

In 16 cities and towns in California, Maryland and Vermont (along with the District of Columbia), noncitizens are allowed to vote in some local elections, such as for school board or city council. Voters in Santa Ana, California, will decide in November whether to allow noncitizens to vote in citywide elections.

In 2022, New York’s State Supreme Court struck down New York City’s 2021 ordinance that allowed noncitizens to vote in local elections, ruling it violated the state constitution. Proponents have argued that people, regardless of citizenship status, should be able to vote on local issues affecting their children and community.

During the first 150 years of the U.S., 40 states at various times permitted noncitizens to vote in elections. That came to a halt in the 1920s when nativism ramped up and states began making voting a privilege for only U.S. citizens.

The number of noncitizen voters has been relatively small, and those voters are never allowed to participate in statewide or national elections. Local election officials maintain separate voter lists to keep noncitizens out of statewide databases.

In Vermont’s local elections in March, 62 noncitizens voted in Burlington, 13 voted in Montpelier and 11 voted in Winooski, all accounting for a fraction of the total votes.

In Takoma Park, Maryland, of the 347 noncitizens who were registered to vote in 2017, just 72 cast a ballot, according to the latest data provided by the city. And in San Francisco, 36 noncitizens registered to vote in 2020 and 31 voted.

Voter turnout among noncitizens is low for two reasons, said Ron Hayduk, a professor of political science at San Francisco State University, who is one of the leading scholars in this area. Many noncitizens in these jurisdictions do not realize they have the right to vote, and many are afraid of deportation or legal issues, he said.

Registration forms in jurisdictions that allow noncitizens to vote in local elections do acknowledge the risks. In San Francisco, local election officials warn that the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement or other agencies could gain access to the city’s registration lists and advise residents to consult an immigration attorney before registering to vote.

“Immigrants were very excited about this new right to vote, they wanted to vote, but many of them did not ultimately register and vote because they were concerned,” Hayduk said.

While there are some noncitizens participating in a handful of local elections, they’re not participating illegally in any substantial way in state and national elections.

Though there’s room for legitimate debate about whether noncitizens should be allowed to vote at the local level, there is no widespread voter fraud among noncitizens nationally, said Walter Olson, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank.

In 2020, federal investigators charged 19 noncitizens for voting in North Carolina elections. A national database run by The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, shows that there have been fewer than 100 cases of voter fraud tied to noncitizens since 2002, according to a recent count by The Washington Post.

Trump continues to falsely assert that he was the rightful winner of the 2020 presidential election and that he had more of the popular vote in 2016. He has claimed without evidence that voter fraud was to blame, including in part from noncitizens.

With illegal immigration near the top of major issues for voters ahead of November, Trump and his movement sense they have momentum with the public to tie immigration concerns with their continued election claims, Olson said.

It’s a way of keeping Democrats on the back foot, by falsely accusing them of allowing immigrants to come into the country illegally so they can vote, he added.

“The imaginings that there is some sort of plot by an entire major political party is just remarkably evidence-free,” he said.

Fighting ‘the left’

Although voter fraud among noncitizens is not happening widely, states should still add protections to their voting systems to prevent that possibility, said Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, a Republican.

Raffensperger has been a major proponent of a Peach State law that requires documentation to verify the citizenship status of voters. In 2022, he announced that an internal audit of Georgia’s voter rolls over the past 25 years found that 1,634 noncitizens had attempted to register to vote, but not a single one cast a ballot.

“I will continue to fight the left on this issue so that only American citizens decide American elections,” Raffensperger wrote in a statement to Stateline.

Meanwhile, lawmakers in Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina and West Virginia are actively considering legislation that would add ballot initiatives for November to prevent noncitizen voting. Those bills are at various points in the legislative process, with many having already passed one chamber.

During a committee hearing last week, Republican Missouri state Sen. Ben Brown said the state’s constitutional language is vague enough to allow cities to let noncitizens vote. While presenting his bill, he cited California’s parallel constitutional wording and how cities such as Oakland and San Francisco allow noncitizens to vote in local elections.

Most state constitutions have similar language around voter eligibility, saying that “every” U.S. citizen that is 18 or over can vote. The proposed amendments usually would change one word, emphasizing that “only” U.S. citizens can vote, eliminating an ambiguity in the text that has left room for cities in several states to allow noncitizen participation in elections.

It’s a “pretty simple” fix, said Jack Tomczak, vice president of outreach for Americans for Citizen Voting, a group that works with state lawmakers to amend their constitutions so that only citizens can vote in state and local elections.

“It does dilute the voice of citizens of this country,” Tomczak said. “And it also dilutes the nature of citizenship.”

Stateline is part of States Newsroom, a national nonprofit news organization focused on state policy.

©2024 States Newsroom. Visit at stateline.org. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Opinion: It’s Well Past Time for New York City to Get the Right Stuff Done

posted in: Politics | 0

“The city is becoming increasingly harsh for the very constituency the mayor claims to care about: the underserved in the forgotten outreaches of the city’s neighborhoods.”

Michael Appleton/Mayoral Photography Office

Mayor Eric Adams at a press conference in January 2022.

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

Eric Adams has made “get stuff done” his mayoral mantra. And he’s right, there’s so much to do. But it’s not just a matter of getting stuff done—it’s a matter of who it’s getting done for.

In this regard Adams is much like his mayoral predecessors, following a multi-decade legacy of getting stuff done that mostly prioritizes the wants and perspectives of New York’s elites, from finance and real estate to the big, purportedly nonprofit universities and hospital systems and deep-pocketed Manhattan museums. Some of the city’s major philanthropies and municipal unions are culpable too. It’s a legacy that far too often leaves behind the needs of everyday New Yorkers and their neighborhoods.

In the absence of strong mayoral leadership committed to the interests of the many, we have a civic agenda frequently set by campaign cash, political expediency and, oftentimes, bureaucratic inertia. I’ve seen this from the inside, for a decade in city government, including as director of the Mayor’s Office of Operations under David Dinkins. The time to reset the civic balance of power is long overdue. 

To start, we need to re-examine our culture, our city’s governing belief system. The current culture is based on impunity where economic exploitation by the powerful few goes unpunished. Under Mayor Adams, and to a large degree much like his predecessors, the predators and exploiters run rampant while most New Yorkers are left with shredded services. A tattered semblance of regulatory guardrails exists, with a light touch on enforcement. While Mayor Adams has cracked down on street vendors, Starbucks is allowed to flaunt the Fair Workweek law and exploit its modestly paid staff.

The need for structural change can no longer be ignored. This begins with burden sharing and a renewed conversation about who pays what and who subsidizes whom. We know that during the COVID pandemic the financial and other elites amassed even greater wealth, while much of the rest of us gained little economic ground. Data shows that the wealthy pocketed most of the rewards and shouldered none of the burdens. The number of city tax filers with incomes of $10 million or more grew by more than 50 percent from 2019 to 2021.

As the mayor’s record low approval ratings underscore, we need to call out the absence of civic and political leadership at this moment in our city’s history. It’s hard to name executives not only in government, but in our private institutions and in the philanthropic community that would step beyond their current roles and offer solutions to structural issues that have hampered our city for decades.

The list of challenges the city faces is considerable. Topping the list is significant affordable housing. While Adams has made some concrete proposals to help spur housing construction, a key question remains about how much of it will be affordable to New Yorkers of modest means. For decades, the city’s affordable housing programs have largely left the lowest-income New Yorkers behind. And much of the lowest-cost housing that’s been created is studios and one-bedrooms, not suitable for families. The mayor’s refusal to expand the availability of city-funded housing vouchers—as mandated by the City Council—underscores a lack of emphasis on the housing needs of lower income New Yorkers.

Likewise, the mayor’s continued commitment to the long-dominant civic philosophy of austerity budgeting has further frayed the city’s safety net. For the mayor’s first two years, the city processed barely 40 percent of the applicants for the federally funded food stamp program in a timely fashion. While the mayor has recently hired 1,000 people to deal with the backlog, for two years he allowed timely processing to tumble even as the need grew.

And as The City reported in January, the number of apartments sitting vacant in the city’s public housing developments had increased by almost 50 percent over the past year—despite a waiting list of 240,000 households.

Some of the decline in services can be linked to cutbacks in city staffing through attrition and a hiring freeze. But the problems with the mayor’s management of the city’s workforce run deeper than staff shortages—he’s pushed aside some of the very people who have the knowledge and experience that can help meet the challenges the city faces now and in the future. As a result, city agencies have lost institutional knowledge, planning capacity and, to borrow one of the mayor’s favorite phrases, the expertise for getting stuff done.

The city is becoming increasingly harsh for the very constituency the mayor claims to care about: the underserved in the forgotten outreaches of the city’s neighborhoods. Library hours have been cut, pre-K slots dropped and funding for our parks, contrary to the mayor’s campaign pledge, is decreasing to a proposed $584 million in the upcoming fiscal year.

It would not be an overstatement to say that the city has become the intersection between private wealth and public squalor. While hedge fund billionaire Steve Cohen makes a play for building a casino on parkland, his baseball team, the Mets, pays no property tax for its stadium—much as the Yankees, Knicks, Nets and Rangers get a free pass on property taxes for their facilities collectively worth more than $300 million a year.

New Yorkers should also be asking why the city continues to put billions of taxpayer dollars in banks that fail to prioritize the interests of our communities. Too many of the banks that hold the city’s deposits maintain lending and other practices that foster racial and economic disparities: namely, redlining neighborhoods of color and investing in predatory landlords. The city doesn’t regulate the banks, but we can decide where we want to put our money if they’re not meeting our needs.

With so much to do, here are some ideas about taking another road forward, one that maps out structural and systemic changes. It’s a call for leadership that sets a new direction for a vastly different set of governing choices:

Shift resources to public infrastructure and public space. We need to turn away from the stale practice of awarding sizeable public tax abatements to private sector entities, with questionable benefits to the city. The recent deal to exempt property taxes and charge a reduced rent for Vornado Realty Trust’s Pier 94 project, which the local community board chair called an economic development “giveaway,” is a clear example. So, too, are the tax breaks provided to luxury housing developments like One57, where a penthouse sold for $100 million.

These giveaways should be in the city’s rear-view mirror (yet the mayor and governor pushed to recently revive the break that went to One57 and many other buildings). Instead, we need to redirect the use of subsidies from private entities to enhancing public physical space: to our libraries, early childhood and day care centers, our senior centers, New York City Housing Authority community centers and playgrounds, public-school yards and our outer borough cultural institutions. It is also critical that such efforts involve substantial community input, as is finally occurring with the Kingsbridge Armory. “[F]or for nearly 30 years, the Kingsbridge Armory has languished despite grand plans by mega-developers, billionaire investors and celebrities to repurpose the 570,000-square foot landmark,” wrote Stefanos Chen and Winnie Hu in The New York Times, highlighting the unusual redirection of planning for the armory to a community-led approach.

Ensure that safety net programs are efficient and effective. As Kim Phillips-Fein wrote in The New York Review of Books, “Mayor Adams’ skepticism about raising taxes and his insistence on belt tightening and the need to cut social service programs reflect a sense of who matters in the city, and who the city is for.”

At a time of increased need, accelerated access to basic social services like food stamps and cash advances, as well as other services such as child care, are critically important and cannot be relegated to crimped budget outlays and bureaucratic inertia. The city’s poverty rate has soared to 23 percent, from 18 percent in 2021. According to a February New York Times article by Stefanos Chen, ‘The number of New Yorkers living in poverty, nearly two million in all, included one in four children.” The article continues, “The steep rise in the number of New Yorkers living in poverty which grew by 500,000 residents in 2022, underscores wide and longstanding disparities.” And a December article in Gothamist by Arya Sundaram cited James Parrott, who characterized the city’s prosperity as lopsided. “People in the bottom half are losing ground,” Parrott said, “income inequality in the city is now the greatest among major cities across the country.”

Forge a new relationship with municipal labor. For too long, the city’s workforce has functioned under antiquated work rules and bureaucratic inertia. As Dana Rubinstein and Emma G. Fitzsimmons wrote in The New York Times, the Adams administration “…created a work environment where independent thought was discouraged and obedience to directives was valued.” Staff dissatisfaction, coupled with substantial staff cuts, is a recipe for agency dysfunction—and it’s the city’s everyday residents who suffer the consequences. In tandem with the municipal labor unions, the city should craft a partnership that gives a greater voice to frontline employees, reforms rigid work rules that constrain job responsibilities and modernizes work hours—from a four-day workweek to more work from home opportunities. At the same time, the municipal unions need to step back from their parochial focus on the interest of just their members and embrace actions that benefit all workers. 

Create—and enforce—robust guardrails that protect working families from predatory abuse. While the Adams administration has vigorously enforced regulations against street vendors, seizing their goods and levying hefty fines, white collar abuses of tenants and workers remain largely unchecked. Property owners who fail to make repairs and violate rent and other regulatory rules can repeatedly wind up on worst landlord lists but rarely face consequences—even as millions of dollars in fines go unpaid. Similarly, too many private sector employers engage in wage theft, particularly among hourly paid workers in the hospitality and construction sectors. Migrants are especially targeted for wage and benefit abuses. And another aspect of wage theft that employers use is to squeeze hourly work week schedules, that result in lost pay and unpredictable work week conditions, and wreaks havoc on individual’s home lives. Lost wages total an estimated $1 billion annually. 

Divest from Wall Street banks and create a public bank. Currently, the city deposits billions of dollars in Wall Street banks, entities notorious for exploiting and draining wealth from low-income neighborhoods, perpetuating racial and economic disparities. In fact, the bulk of the city’s funds sit in just three big banks—Bank of America, Citibank, and JPMorgan Chase—which collectively poured over $1 trillion into fossil fuel corporations over the past decade.

The city should establish a public bank to leverage this dormant potential toward investments in long-ignored public needs. A broad coalition led by New Economy Project has been leading the charge for such a bank to hold city deposits and reinvest in the public good. It would invigorate local economies by providing responsible loans, often in partnership with neighborhood financial institutions, to small businesses and individuals—directly fueling job creation, affordable housing initiatives, and the development of sustainable infrastructure.

This initiative will require collaboration between the state and key city stakeholders, including the mayor, city comptroller, and City Council. Fierce lobbying by the big banks has all but ensured Wall Street maintains its monopolistic grip on New York’s financial ecosystem. In the meantime, in the spirit of embracing the common good and equitable burden-sharing, wealthy institutions—such as private hospitals, universities, foundations and well-endowed museums—should begin to divest from Wall Street banks and redirect their account holdings to community-based credit unions and other financial institutions that responsibly serve the city’s neighborhoods. Municipal labor also should join in this effort. 

For decades, conversations about the city’s policies and priorities have been framed and directed by the elite. For too long, we have as a city accepted their views, their facts, their preferences. In a series of wrong turns mapped by the leadership of blinkered institutions, they’ve taken us down a path of harsh economic conditions and starved city services, while wealth accumulation for the few has been protected.

It’s time for a reset on the city’s priorities, one that emphasizes the needs and interests of everyday New Yorkers.  It’s time for leadership that listens to all voices.  It’s time to get stuff done, especially when there’s so much to do. 

For over 40 years, Harvey Robins, has worked in various positions in city government, non-profits and foundations, including the NYC Human Resources Administration as first deputy administrator, the Board of Education as deputy chancellor for finance and administration, the director of the Mayor’s Office of Operations, the Children’s Aid Society as director of strategic planning and the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation as director of strategic planning and operations.