assions ran
high in the New York City Council meeting of February 4th as
two extremely important votes took place. The first was an override of the
Mayor’s veto of "The Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Act." The second
was a resolution condemning the USA PATRIOT Act.
The debate about the lead paint bill centered around the issue of
whether this new law would drive the cost of insurance so high that it
would imperil affordable housing. Some councilmembers, such as Minority
Leader
James Otto (R-Staten Island), stated that not enough investigation had
been made into the bill’s "unintended consequences that would have a
chilling effect on the city’s housing stock." However several other
councilmembers, such as Bill de Blasio (D-Brooklyn), stated that no bill
has gone through more scrutiny than this one. "There isn’t a single nook
or cranny that wasn’t looked at and analyzed with every possible voice
at the table."
Several
councilmembers pointed out that the negative effects people say they
fear this bill will bring about are all speculative, but the effects of
not passing it are very real and apparent every day. The bill’s
prime sponsor, Deputy Majority Leader Bill Perkins (D-Harlem), spoke
about the very actual children of the lead belt who have been victimized
for years - 5,000 children a year poisoned for life, with a social cost
of billions of dollars. This had been testified to not only by
advocates, but by competent doctors. Perkins extended his particular
appreciation to the Council’s Black, Latino and Asian Caucus without
whom this bill would not have passed, to the New York City Coalition to
End Lead Poisoning and especially to "those mothers of lead poisoned
children who turned their despair into hope and came to the City Council
because they knew that in this body they would find allies who were
sympathetic to their cause."
Just as
when it originally reached the floor last December, the lead paint bill
passed 44 in the affirmative, 5 in the negative with one abstention.
From there, the meeting plunged straight into the second ardent
discussion of the day, regarding Resolution 909A, also introduced by
Perkins, which "calls upon federal, state and local officials, and upon
New York City agencies and institutions, to affirm and uphold civil
rights and civil liberties." The resolution is aimed at the federal USA
PATRIOT Act and Domestic Security Enhancement Act (DSEA) - also known as
PATRIOT II - "which may further compromise constitutional rights and our
government’s unique system of checks and balances."
Several councilmembers spoke fervently against the resolution,
stating that they think these Acts are exactly what is required at this
time for the good of the nation. Simcha Felder (D-Brooklyn) stated that
we are at war and this resolution sends the wrong message. "We’re
telling our government to protect us at all costs - except we don’t
trust them to strike a balance between security and liberty." Council
Member de Blasio responded that there have been times when the
government went in the wrong direction and did not strike that balance –
during the Joseph McCarthy period, for example, with the communist witch
hunt.
Council Member Peter Vallone, Jr. (D-Queens) said that the Patriot
Act has helped keep us safe for two years now, and that "the safety of
the public must always be our number one priority, not the rights of
suspected terrorists." However, Council Member Kendall Stewart
(D-Brooklyn) pointed out that everybody’s Constitutional rights
and freedoms are eroded by this Act, not just those suspected of
terrorism. It allows law enforcement officials to detain anyone without
charges, monitor a person’s Internet activity without probable cause,
charge peaceful protesters with "domestic terrorism" when they engage in
civil disobedience, and to spy on First Amendment protected activities.
Law enforcement officials can also obtain confidential information from
library, medical or banking records without any evidence that the
"suspect" is involved in any criminal activity.
While some members questioned whether it would be patriotic to pass
this resolution, many more made it clear they felt it would be
unpatriotic not to do so. Council Member Margarita Lopez
(D-Manhattan) said, "Opposing the Patriot Act is being a good patriotic
American who believes in freedom and will not allow anybody - including
the President of this country - to destroy our constitution and 14th
Amendment."
Council
Member Letitia James (D-Brooklyn) reminded everyone that they each took
an oath to defend the constitutions of New York State and the United
States of America. This oath was to uphold the right to free speech,
free expression, due process, a fair trial and the right to confront
ones accuser – all things the Patriot Act undermines. "To erode our
rights, to deny basic freedoms is inconsistent with the fundamental
basis upon which this country is founded," she declared. "Dissent is
democracy. Dissent is freedom. And I vote for freedom."
Most other councilmembers agreed, for when it was put to a voice
vote, Resolution 909A passed overwhelmingly. Thirty-seven out of 51
voted for the resolution, and one abstained. So New York City has, at
last, joined forces with the three states (Alaska, Hawaii, and Vermont)
and 250 cities, towns, and counties across the nation that have passed
resolutions attempting to defend the US Constitution and the Bill of
Rights from Patriot Acts I and II. Many New York City residents feel
it’s about time.
