The evacuation legislation introduced in the City Council last week is geared at keeping tenants in flood-prone basement apartments out of harm’s way.

Kevin P. Coughlin / Office of the Governor

Flooding in Queens following Hurricane Ida in 2021.

Following flash floods that brought the city to a halt in late September, a new bill was introduced in the City Council last week to ensure that landlords distribute flood evacuation plans to their tenants.

The legislation would require building owners to deliver the evacuation protocols to residents when they sign a lease, and maintain instructions on what to do in the event of a flood “in a common area of the building” for everyone to see.

“This is really for New Yorkers that are living in basement and first floor apartments,” explained Councilmember Carlina Rivera, the legislation’s main sponsor.

By 2050, one out of every three cellars and basements in one-, two-, and three-family homes across the city will be at-risk for flooding, according to a report produced by the Comptroller’s office. When Hurricane Ida hit in 2021, it took the lives of 13 New Yorkers, 11 of whom drowned in mostly unregulated basement apartments in Queens and Brooklyn, the report also highlighted.

There are an estimated tens of thousands of unregulated basement or cellar apartments across the city.

“The city still has not done enough to prepare for extreme weather events. So we have to move faster to create better infrastructure. But we also need to equip tenants with the information so they know what to do in the event of a crisis or a disaster,” Rivera told City Limits, noting that evacuation protocols will be printed in several languages.

A study published by the non-profit Citizens Housing & Planning Council (CHPC)  found that the city’s Emergency Preparedness Guide, which informs New Yorkers on what to do when all kinds of disasters strike, includes “very little content surrounding safety precautions for flash flooding.”

The guide instructs tenants to “stay indoors” during a storm, and that those who live in a basement should “move to a higher floor during periods of heavy rain.” It also warns not to “retreat into an enclosed attic unless you have a saw or other tool to cut a hole in the roof.”

While the new legislation aims to make flood evacuation guidelines more accessible, housing advocates warn that many folks will still get left out.

“The most vulnerable basement apartment dwellers are the ones who are in units that are not lawful units, and don’t have legal leases. So this [legislation] doesn’t do anything for those people,” said Howard Slatkin, executive director of the CHPC and member of the NYC Basement Apartments Safe for Everyone (BASE) coalition.

“People in those units don’t have a lawful lease so they don’t have the ability to count on the city to intervene. They’re in a gray market area of the housing world. So unless we have a path to bring them into a legal status, there’s not a way to address these important safety issues,” Slatkin added.

The ongoing battle over the legalization of basement and cellar homes came to a head last spring, when legislation that would make it easier for the city to change the zoning and building codes for such units failed to pass in Albany.

In the absence of a legalization plan, Councilmember Rivera says sharing flood-risk information can still be a powerful tool to keep people safe when a climate emergency rolls around.

“The conversation on how to regulate these apartments is ongoing. Meanwhile, we can spread the information on what [residents’] options are when faced with a disaster,” said Rivera.

“We have to be at the forefront of implementing policies that combat climate and ensure New Yorkers are empowered and informed when there is flooding and heavy rainfall. Big storms are going to keep happening. So it’s urgent,” she added.

To reach the reporter behind this story, contact Mariana@citylimits.org. To reach the editor, contact Jeanmarie@citylimits.org

Rep. Mike Johnson (R-La.) was hours away from winning the speakership when a reporter asked him about the instrumental role he played in the effort to deny certifying the 2020 presidential election on Jan. 6.

Next question, he responded.

Whether the Republican Party can ever reconcile its divergent response to Jan. 6 is not the next question. It’s the question defining this turbulent political moment in Washington and beyond — roiling and coursing just below the surface. These days, all roads lead back to the original lie that Donald Trump won.

Consider that deposed House Speaker Kevin McCarthy ascended to the speakership thanks to his quick work to repair his relationship with Trump after calling his behavior on Jan. 6 “atrocious and totally wrong.” There was no such luck for Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), whose rise to the gavel encountered the opposition of, among others, Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.), who said he wouldn’t vote for an election denier.

Rep. Tom Emmer (R-Minn.) lasted approximately four hours as the party’s third nominee — his effort sunk, in large part, because Trump attacked him over his vote to certify the election results on Jan. 6. Johnson, by contrast, would prove an acceptable speaker in Trump’s estimation, having been the chief architect of an effort to overturn 2020 election results in four swing states.

Eventually, even Buck would make the strained distinction that Johnson’s actions were different, because Jordan took his challenge to the floor but Johnson kept his reservation for the courts.

At virtually the same time as all this was happening, ABC reported that Trump’s ex-chief of staff Mark Meadows — granted immunity by special counsel Jack Smith as he investigates the former president’s effort to overturn the election — had told federal investigators Trump had been “dishonest” with the public after polls closed on Nov. 3, 2020. Meadows himself had also told Trump allegations of widespread voter fraud were baseless, according to the report.

The week’s splitscreen cast into stark relief just how much the Republican Party remains riven over whether to believe the lie that Trump won, a perhaps unbridgeable divide. Only on rare occasions, though, does the divide come to light: in the heat of a speakers’ race, for example, or grand jury testimony with immunity in one’s back pocket, or in a presidential debate. Except for moments like those, the party and its members are mostly keen to keep the divisions hidden. Some things, after all, are just better left unsaid. Or easier.

But until the party reckons with them, it can’t truly move forward, said Fergus Cullen, the former chair of the New Hampshire Republican Party.

“Can we Republicans agree on three things, please? One: the 2020 election was not stolen,” Cullen said. “Two: What happened on January 6 was a bad thing. Three: We shouldn’t be nominating somebody facing 91 criminal indictments.”

But after three weeks mired in a speaker stalemate, and fewer than 90 days before the Iowa caucuses, and four months ahead of Trump’s trial in federal court on charges he allegedly tried to steal the 2020 election, this combustible mix of issues is about to become front and center.

“It just shows that there’s a lack of understanding or lack of willingness to confront what happened that day and why it was so dangerous,” said a former Republican congressional leadership staffer granted anonymity to assess the party frankly. “And I think that’s borne out the stranglehold that Donald Trump still has on the party.”

This person added: “One side is winning and one side losing and the side that is winning right now inside the party… are the people that were not willing to accept the results of the election and wanted to overturn it.”

The whitewashing of Jan. 6 is not limited to the House. In Virginia, Tim Griffin, a Republican elections attorney who played a pivotal role in trying to overturn 2020 results in multiple swing states, is poised to win a statehouse bid next month. This, despite opposition from within his own Virginia Republican Party.

On the presidential hustings, the non-Trump candidates flit from Iowa to New Hampshire, going through the motions on the trail: wanting to talk about anything but Jan. 6.

Back in August, on stage for the first debate Milwaukee, everyone except biotech entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy sided with former Vice President Mike Pence’s actions to certify the election results on Jan. 6. And yet all but former governors Chris Christie of New Jersey and Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas also raised their hands signifying that they would support Trump as president in 2024 even if he was convicted of any of his four pending legal cases, including over Jan. 6.

No one personifies the one-sided civil war happening in the GOP over Jan. 6 more than Pence. Before he announced his presidential bid, a longtime Pence confidant said Pence faced a decision.

“He’s got to decide whether he wants to be a Jim-Baker-like statesman that can just always be principled and speak the truth for the rest of his life, with no calculation of political cost,” this person said. “Or do you want to get the nomination?”

This person added: “He’s not going to go Liz Cheney.”

At first, Pence seemed to opt for a Jim Baker-Cheney lane. But the former vice president, who has staked much of his presidential campaign on having done his “duty” on Jan. 6, now finds himself tripping over the logical consequences of that stance — and not fully embracing Cheney’s tack. Among those raising their hands that night back in Milwaukee was Pence, who just two months earlier had said in his announcement that “anyone who puts themselves over the Constitution should never be president of the United States.” And yet there he was on CNN days ago, saying Jordan would be an “outstanding” speaker, despite the fact that Jordan — someone who violated Pence’s red line on Jan. 6 — would then be in the line of presidential succession.

Pence twisted himself in knots again on Tuesday, posting to X that Johnson, the architect of the Texas amicus brief that sought to invalidate the 2020 results in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, was a “proven conservative leader,” rooting for a person who threatened the peaceful transfer of power to now be second in line in presidential succession.

Pence urged every House GOP member “to vote to elect this good and decent man as the next Speaker of the House,” which they did on Wednesday.

Pence will have other moments in which he will have to choose which side of the divide he wants to occupy. But they likely won’t come as a presidential candidate. He is struggling to qualify for the next GOP debate in Miami. And has dwindling cash on hand.

When Super Tuesday comes on March 5, he very well may be out of the race.

But he still could be asked to comment on the events of Jan. 6. Not as a presidential candidate, but as the government’s star witness against Trump. That trial begins the day before.

For Republicans, Jan. 6, like the past, is not dead. It’s not even past.

Baltimore Sun staff writers pick every game of the NFL season. Here’s who they have winning in Week 8:

Tampa Bay Buccaneers at Buffalo Bills (Thursday, 8:15 p.m.)

Brian Wacker (58-48 season; 5-8 last week): Bills

Childs Walker (66-40 season; 6-7 last week): Bills

Mike Preston (57-49 season; 5-8 last week): Bills

C.J. Doon (67-39 season; 5-8 last week): Bills

Tim Schwartz (64-42 season; 4-9 last week): Bills

Houston Texans at Carolina Panthers (Sunday, 1 p.m.)

Wacker: Texans

Walker: Texans

Preston: Texans

Doon: Texans

Schwartz: Texans

Los Angeles Rams at Dallas Cowboys (Sunday, 1 p.m.)

Wacker: Cowboys

Walker: Cowboys

Preston: Cowboys

Doon: Cowboys

Schwartz: Cowboys

Minnesota Vikings at Green Bay Packers (Sunday, 1 p.m.)

Wacker: Vikings

Walker: Packers

Preston: Vikings

Doon: Vikings

Schwartz: Vikings

New Orleans Saints at Indianapolis Colts (Sunday, 1 p.m.)

Wacker: Colts

Walker: Colts

Preston: Colts

Doon: Saints

Schwartz: Colts

New England Patriots at Miami Dolphins (Sunday, 1 p.m.)

Wacker: Dolphins

Walker: Dolphins

Preston: Dolphins

Doon: Dolphins

Schwartz: Dolphins

New York Jets at New York Giants (Sunday, 1 p.m.)

Wacker: Jets

Walker: Jets

Preston: Jets

Doon: Jets

Schwartz: Jets

Jacksonville Jaguars at Pittsburgh Steelers (Sunday, 1 p.m.)

Wacker: Jaguars

Walker: Jaguars

Preston: Steelers

Doon: Jaguars

Schwartz: Steelers

Atlanta Falcons at Tennessee Titans (Sunday, 1 p.m.)

Wacker: Titans

Walker: Titans

Preston: Titans

Doon: Falcons

Schwartz: Falcons

Philadelphia Eagles at Washington Commanders (Sunday, 1 p.m.)

Wacker: Eagles

Walker: Eagles

Preston: Eagles

Doon: Eagles

Schwartz: Eagles

Cleveland Browns at Seattle Seahawks (Sunday, 4:05 p.m.)

Wacker: Seahawks

Walker: Seahawks

Preston: Browns

Doon: Browns

Schwartz: Seahawks

Kansas City Chiefs at Denver Broncos (Sunday, 4:25 p.m.)

Wacker: Chiefs

Walker: Chiefs

Preston: Chiefs

Doon: Chiefs

Schwartz: Chiefs

Cincinnati Bengals at San Francisco 49ers (Sunday, 4:25 p.m.)

Wacker: Bengals

Walker: 49ers

Preston: Bengals

Doon: Bengals

Schwartz: Bengals

Chicago Bears at Los Angeles Chargers (Sunday, 8:20 p.m.)

Wacker: Chargers

Walker: Chargers

Preston: Chargers

Doon: Bears

Schwartz: Chargers

Las Vegas Raiders at Detroit Lions (Monday, 8:15 p.m.)

Wacker: Lions

Walker: Lions

Preston: Lions

Doon: Lions

Schwartz: Lions

()

A blowout gross domestic product report on Thursday showed the economy surged over the summer, driven in part by consumer spending.

The 4.9 percent increase in GDP is a great headline for “Bidenomics” at a time when voters just aren’t buying what the president has done for their bank accounts.

But economists predict this may be as good as it gets for the near future — and some fear it may spur the Federal Reserve to do more to slow growth and fight inflation. Here’s a breakdown:

What economists expected

It beat some economists’ expectations but fell short of others. The Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta’s “GDPNow” model had estimated that the economy grew 5.4 percent in the third quarter.

Still, the number showed the economy expanded at its fastest rate in nearly two years.

“The U.S. economy’s resilience will likely be on full display,” Wells Fargo economists said before the release.

Along those lines, the Treasury Department released a report Thursday that said the U.S. economy has not only outperformed expectations this year but has also helped support the global outlook.

“The progress we have made on growth, labor markets and inflation stands out across the globe, and remains an important source of strength for the global economy,” Treasury acting assistant secretary Eric Van Nostrand and deputy assistant secretary Tara Sinclair said.

Sounds great! Are voters feeling it?

If they are, they’re not giving President Joe Biden much credit. His economic approval ratings are still in the red by double digits, including his handling of inflation. More than half of the people surveyed in an Oct. 21-24 Economist/YouGov poll said the economy is getting worse.

What could go wrong?

Economists are expecting growth to slow heading into next year.

Borrowing costs are rising, pandemic financial buffers are being drawn down and student loans are coming due – not to mention the hot wars playing out in the Middle East and Ukraine. The talk among CEOs is that they aren’t thrilled about what’s in store for the economy next year.

It underscores that the third-quarter GDP number may be stellar, but it’s a dated snapshot.

The question then becomes: To what extent will Jerome Powell’s data-driven Fed take action based on the new stat, which could suggest more work is needed to head off inflation? The Fed is expected to hold interest rates steady when it meets next week.

“That’s where I constantly feel this tension between the Fed having been and continuing to be extremely data dependent — and backward-looking as a result — versus what would be optimal in the current environment, which is a forward-looking perspective,” EY-Parthenon chief economist Gregory Daco said Wednesday.

The key issue, according to Daco, is whether consumers and business leaders still have the buffers they need to keep spending into 2024 amid a persistently high-cost, high-interest rate environment.

“The answer to that question, in my opinion, is no,” he said. “But depending on how you respond to that question, you’re going to want to be more or less hawkish in terms of monetary policy.”