Press Room

With rents at historic highs and city staffing levels at some agencies at dramatic lows, New York City Public Advocate Jumaane D. Williams called for increases in income-targeted affordable housing production and increases in the number of inspectors for the Departments of Buildings and of Housing Preservation and Development as priorities in the city budget for FY2024. At a hearing of the City Council Committee on Housing and Buildings, he highlighted the urgency of the housing and homelessness crisis in the city and several of the steps needed to address it.

"With a deteriorating housing stock and a worsening affordability crisis, preserving and building new income-targeted affordable housing in the city of New York is now more important than ever," said Public Advocate Williams in a statement. "As of February, the city’s homeless population reached a high of 77,000 people, a concerning number that coincides with the loss of thousands of rent-stabilized apartments in the city and loss of thousands of income-targeted affordable units as a whole."

The Public Advocate noted the urgent need for additional inspectors to identify and correct dangerous conditions in buildings citywide, saying "Staffing the departments in charge of these programs is key; a recent report by the Comptroller’s office found that amid high vacancy rates, HPD only met 33% of its targets, the Office of Administration ranking as one of the units of appropriation with the highest vacancy rate across city agencies."

He supported efforts to convert commercial office space into residential units, emphasizing the need for deep, income-targeted affordability in that development, "I urge the Council to pass Resolution 503, which calls for the conversion of commercial units to residential units. We have to make sure that affordability is key there, and that those neighborhoods have what they need to live comfortable lives. The creation of the Affordable Housing from Commercial Conversions (AHCC) tax benefit program would stimulate more funding for conversion projects, funding often cited as a key barrier to conversion efforts. DOB staffing should be increased to move this process forward quickly and create new housing."

As part of the effort to increase the safety and availability of housing, Public Advocate Williams also called for the legalization and regulation of converted accessory dwelling units. The Public Advocate's full statement as delivered is below.

STATEMENT OF PUBLIC ADVOCATE JUMAANE D. WILLIAMS

TO THE NEW YORK CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND BUILDINGS

MARCH 15, 2023

Good afternoon,

My name is Jumaane D. Williams, and I am the Public Advocate for the City of New York. I would like to thank Chair Sanchez and the members of the Committee on Housing and Buildings for holding this hearing. My testimony will address housing issues as well building code enforcement as overseen, respectively, by the Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) and the Department of Buildings (DOB). 

With a deteriorating housing stock and a worsening affordability crisis, preserving and building new income-targeted affordable housing in the city of New York is now more important than ever. As of February, the city’s homeless population reached a high of 77,000 people, a concerning number that coincides with the loss of thousands of rent-stabilized apartments in the city and loss of thousands of income-targeted affordable units as a whole. 

The Mayor's current proposal allocates $36 million dollars for HPD’s Office of Development, earmarking funds for homeowner assistance programs, supportive housing and emergency rental vouchers. An additional $660,000 is allocated towards rental subsidy programs, reflecting a critical need to support rent-burdened households. Staffing the departments in charge of these programs is key; a recent report by the Comptroller’s office found that amid high vacancy rates, HPD only met 33% of its targets, the Office of Administration ranking as one of the units of appropriation with the highest vacancy rate across city agencies. 

In addition to supporting homeowners and renters, the city must invest in efforts to legalize, regulate and ensure the safety of converted accessory dwelling units (ADUs). The conversion of ADUs can help meet the need for housing stock. There are currently an estimated 400,000 people living in basement and cellar dwellings across the five boroughs. In addition to this, the city and state have explored converting empty office buildings into housing as an alternative to building on public land, which proves difficult given the shortage of publicly-owned land. I urge the Council to pass Resolution 503, which calls for the conversion of commercial units to residential units. We have to make sure that affordability is key there, and that those neighborhoods have what they need to live comfortable lives. The creation of the Affordable Housing from Commercial Conversions (AHCC) tax benefit program would stimulate more funding for conversion projects, funding often cited as a key barrier to conversion efforts. DOB staffing should be increased to move this process forward quickly and create new housing.

Furthermore, with recent legislation seeking to amend building codes, DOB must commit to enforcing code compliance. Code enforcement will not only equip our city’s buildings with the means to weather the impact of climate change, as it pertains to new green energy-efficient initiatives, but it will also ensure the lives and safety of New Yorkers as it relates to fire prevention. In this, I commend the administration for allocating additional city funds to reinspecting buildings with existing self-closing door violations. 

I will say, as the Chair has mentioned, in both of these agencies there seems to be a high rate of vacancies, and I do agree with trying to find efficiencies where possible in terms of vacancies, but not every vacancy is the same. Vacancies at DOB and HPD are very harmful, particularly if we don’t have enough people to inspect housing, for people to go into, or inspect construction sites, where we sadly have seen an uptick in deaths. I’m proud to have worked on [Local Law 196] so it does concern me to see what we can do to prevent those deaths.

I would also like to know -- what is the total revenues received from issuing After Hours Variances (AHV) for this fiscal year and the previous fiscal years before and during the pandemic? And in closing, I would like to know whether the AHV revenues end up in NYC’s general funds, or remain in the agency? 

Thank you.

Amid an ongoing crisis on Rikers Island and as the city indicates it will not meet the mandated timeline to close the facility by 2027, New York City Public Advocate Jumaane D. Williams urged the Board of Correction to oppose both proposed changes to Department of Correction procedures in jails and changes to the Board's oversight and accountability role. At a public meeting today, he highlighted both the harm caused by the proposals and their ineffectiveness at meeting stated goals. Following his and others' public statements in opposition to the proposals, the Board declined to vote on the changes.

"The Board of Correction is intended to serve in a key oversight role – as Public Advocate, a position built on the need for oversight, I identify with that mission and mandate," opened Public Advocate Jumaane D. Williams. "Today the Board is considering a number of troubling policy changes both the operations of the Department of Correction, which it is charged with overseeing, and to its own operations and procedures."

The Board today considered two requests from the Department of Correction related to incoming mail for incarcerated individuals. The Department is seeking to limit the source of packages, as well as a shift that would present detainees with a digital copy of any correspondence rather than the original physical document. Each of these requests was purportedly rooted in a desire to limit contraband - in opposing them, the Public Advocate noted not only that the changes would reduce the rights of incarcerated New Yorkers, but that they would not address the most pervasive sources of contraband, which comes through staff.

"If DOC is serious about reducing harm and shifting the culture on Rikers, they should focus on known points of entry and on reducing the population of overcrowded jails through producing individuals for court appearances, rather than fixating primarily on methods which do not address the bulk of incoming contraband and contribute to the dehumanization and reduction of rights of detained individuals..." the Public Advocate argued, later adding that "During the height of the pandemic, when visitors were not allowed on the island, drug seizures skyrocketed, and were blamed on incoming mail, but the data did not support that. The drugs found via mail wouldn’t account for even a third of the surge in seizures, and it was at this point that measures aside from limits of mail and packages should have been implemented. What is clear is that generally, the primary entry for drugs into facilities, nationwide, has been staff."

In addition, the Board considered proposals to reduce the number of annual public meetings and the number of members of the public able to speak at these meetings. In opposition to these changes which would limit the voices of incarcerated people, their families, and the broader city, the Public Advocate said "It can’t be further emphasized that limiting both the number of meetings and comments harms both the public and the Board. It limits the public’s trust in the Board as an oversight entity and eliminates a crucial knowledge base for the Board. The Board, and its role in overseeing operations in city jails, should be centered on the principles of access, transparency, and accountability. In both its guidelines for the Department and in its own procedures, it must exemplify those ideas."

The Public Advocate's full comments as delivered are below.

Good afternoon, and thank you for making space for me to speak today.

The Board of Correction is intended to serve in a key oversight role – as Public Advocate, a position built on the need for oversight, I identify with that mission and mandate. Today the Board is considering a number of troubling policy changes both the operations of the Department of Correction, which it is charged with overseeing, and to its own operations and procedures.

I want to acknowledge the backdrop of this hearing – a new announcement from the administration has pushed the timeline for the first borough-based facility, in Brooklyn, back to 2029. Our city has a moral and legal mandate to close Rikers by 2027, and this undercuts the timeline as well as the urgency of ending the crisis on the island. While we continue to push to expedite the closure, it is vital that we address the operations there today, and with that, I want to speak to three proposals before this Board.

First, the board is considering a variance to restrict packages as the DOC claims that changes are needed to confront the influx of fentanyl into the prison and a growing number of overdoses. However, this argument is contradicted by the fact that DOC is already empowered to open every single letter or package to people in custody for the explicit purpose of seizing any weapons, or drugs. Just last year, the Department of Investigation (DOI) stated that “the mail and visits are not significant entry points for contraband.” Furthermore, recent reports from the Department of Investigation found that officers exploit weakened security checkpoints in order to smuggle contraband. If DOC is serious about reducing harm and shifting the culture on Rikers, they should focus on known points of entry and on reducing the population of overcrowded jails through producing individuals for court appearances, rather than fixating primarily on methods which do not address the bulk of incoming contraband and contribute to the dehumanization and reduction of rights of detained individuals.

Second, DOC is seeking a variance to allow the department to open and electronically deliver mail to incarcerated people, rather than providing physical letters. This reduces the ability for loved ones to connect with those isolated by incarceration and has been shown to decrease the volume of correspondence. The proposed variance also represents a large-scale violation of the privacy and civil rights of people in DOC custody. 

Digitization is often cited for the lack of intimacy, privacy and connection. Not only is this distressing from a human standpoint, we've yet to see concrete evidence that incoming mail is solely responsible for the rash of overdoses. During the height of the pandemic, when visitors were not allowed on the island, drug seizures skyrocketed, and were blamed on incoming mail, but the data did not support that. The drugs found via mail wouldn’t account for even a third of the surge in seizures, and it was at this point that measures aside from limits of mail and packages should have been implemented. What is clear is that generally, the primary entry for drugs into facilities, nationwide, has been staff. At this juncture, I know the commissioner has begun a pilot program at one facility to scan staff. Investigators were easily able to smuggle contraband in through cargo pants and limited security protocol for staff. One of the first moves by the new administration at DOC was to reverse a rule that was put in place to limit their usage. Former corrections officers have testified about the ease of which drugs are smuggled in using cargo pants and about the complicity of leadership in this culture. Many jurisdictions have found themselves in litigation questioning the ability to safely and securely handle mail digitization including the vendor chosen by the Department of Corrections.

Lastly, the board is considering a change that strikes at my very ability to have input in these changes, or for the public to observe and weigh in on critical issues. This board seeks to reduce its mandate from 12 public meetings each year to 6, with three happening virtually, and to limit time and the number of participants for public comment. By decreasing the number of annual meetings to six meetings per year, this resolution would drastically impede the free-flowing exchange of current information from people incarcerated to this oversight body. Although the Board suggests that this Resolution is needed to “achieve enhanced results more efficiently,” any alleged efficiency gains would come at a great cost to incarcerated New Yorkers and to the general public. Frequent, open meetings give incarcerated New Yorkers and their loved ones a chance to have their voices fully heard. Also, these meetings play a critical role in educating the public and the Board itself on current issues in New York City Jails. The information relayed in these meetings, however, can only be as current as the meeting schedule allows and if this schedule is limited it would delay the transfer of critical, life saving information. 

I also oppose the Board’s new policy of limiting public comments to only elected officials and the first six people to sign up for each comment period. Both measures undermine the Board’s oversight authority and its accountability to the public. The best way for the public to voice their concerns is to testify in real time, before any vote is taken–the Board should allow all registered individuals to do so. To refer the general public to written comments is not an adequate substitute for real time verbal testimony. During a typical Board of Correction meeting, votes on proposed measures are taken in the very same meeting at which the measure is presented making written testimony less impactful, if at all.

Moreover, both of these proposed changes are indicative of a troubling larger trend. I want to say, any one of them could make some argument, but all of them combined give me some great concern. The Board of Correction seems to be moving away from a model of transparency and toward secrecy. This is troubling, as the Board’s purpose is to be an independent oversight body. Recently, the Department of Correction revoked the Board of Corrections staff access “to independently view Genetec, the Body worn Camera System, and handheld video at any time.” DOC also “forbade the recording and use of such video in [the Board’s] work”. With this resistance from the Department of Correction, the Board should be applying more pressure—not less. It can’t be further emphasized that limiting both the number of meetings and comments harms both the public and the Board. It limits the public’s trust in the Board as an oversight entity and eliminates a crucial knowledge base for the Board.

The Board, and its role in overseeing operations in city jails, should be centered on the principles of access, transparency, and accountability. In both its guidelines for the Department and in its own procedures, it must exemplify those ideas. 

I urge the Board to reject these changes and stay true to the mission and mandate of transparency and oversight and find some other ways to get at what you’re trying to get at – both providing and being subject to that transparency and oversight. Thank you.

"The administration’s blueprint for the next phase of the ongoing asylum seeker crisis contains many promising ideas, many of which my office has advocated for since this crisis began. It also demonstrates intention to meet our moral and governing responsibility, one that must be shared with the state and federal government along with the financial burden of a holistic humanitarian response. I thank the administration and all who collaborated in developing this approach.

"While the intention and ideas behind this blueprint are commendable, its success relies on its implementation, much of which is unclear. Creating a new center rather than the Port Authority Bus Terminal is positive, but this area should be clearly designated and specified, as should the additional municipalities which I am glad to hear are ready to aid in meeting this challenge. It is true that this ongoing crisis is ever-shifting, but providing as much clarity as possible in these plans is essential to getting buy-in and successfully rolling them out.  

"I appreciate the administration’s continued focus on this issue, a focus shared by local leaders across the city who have been engaged in meeting this crisis and calling for further support from its onset. Unity, collaboration, and clarity are vital in continuing to meet this challenge together and aid our newest and aspiring New Yorkers."

This morning, the Public Advocate co-authored an op-ed in The Daily News about the city's response to asylum seekers and the need to provide adequate housing and other resources, as well as aid New Yorkers who have long been stuck in the shelter system. The piece, co-authored by Comptroller Brad Lander and City Council Committee on Immigration Chair Shahana Hanif, can be read here.

"Today’s mental health announcement thankfully centers support over enforcement, as opposed to strategies put forward in the past. Each of the three prongs of this plan are important, each are valuable, and each comes with concerns about implementation.

"Overdose prevention is urgent and essential. Expanding overdose prevention centers should be at the forefront of this work in our city just as New York should be at the forefront of the harm reduction effort nationally. I’m grateful the administration is supportive of OPCs in principle, and this must be paired with clear, consistent funding streams and a push for the governor to authorize centers and allocate funding. 24 Hour access and an increase in sites would directly, demonstrably save lives, and it’s inexcusable to deny these resources.

"Clubhouses are important spaces for New Yorkers struggling with severe mental illness, and expanding them is a welcome, important part of a holistic mental health plan. That plan must also include respite centers, though, which operate through a model equipped to provide the kind of immediate, walk-in crisis care that is needed.  

"Lastly, supporting the mental health of young people, including through telehealth, is vital. At the same time, questions and concerns remain about agencies involved in identifying the need for services and the path for their provision – it is critically important that we support families, rather than police or penalize them.

"I continue to appreciate the administration’s welcome focus on mental health – one I share. Moving forward, I hope to work with them to ensure that the ideal of support is met with implementation strategies and funding levels that truly, compassionately, effectively address this crisis on all fronts."

NEW YORK: At a hearing of the City Council Committee on Public Safety today, New York City Public Advocate Jumaane D. Williams highlighted misuse of and misconduct by the NYPD Strategic Response Group, and called for them to be removed from policing protests. He also urged greater transparency from the department, and condemned the administration’s absence at the hearing, itself calling their decision not to attend “shameful, and an affront to this Council and to New York City as a whole.”

The NYPD’s Strategic Response Group (SRG) was originally formed to combat terrorism, and equipped as such, but was quickly deployed to protests. As the Public Advocate stated, “The results of the SRG’s presence at protests have been aggressive and chaotic, and have invariably escalated nonviolent protests into dangerous and violent environments… I myself have had the brunt of over-response to protests, several protests, including SRG, including at Occupy Wall Street and at the George Floyd protests of 2020. I’ve also filmed and witnessed it.”

The Public Advocate also highlighted a high rate of misconduct allegations against the SRG, and a lack of transparency and accountability, noting “ A report published last month examining complaints of police misconduct investigated by the CCRB revealed that the CCRB was only able to substantiate 88 of 321 complaints received. The reason this number is so low is not because misconduct did not occur; rather, NYPD officers engaged in purposeful actions to conceal their identity to avoid identification. The NYPD also impeded CCRB investigations by delaying responses to requests for body-worn camera footage, claiming footage did not exist, turning over the wrong footage, and refusing to be interviewed remotely. I would say some of the things that were substantiated by CCRB in the past, some of the worst ones, are officers lying, on record, and nothing happened.”

After noting that the unit has responded differently to protests based on the cause and makeup of the protestors, the Public Advocate concluded saying “Deploying the SRG to police protests has demonstrably resulted in unnecessary abuse and violence, and their presence should no longer be allowed at protests. It is unsurprising that the SRG frequently uses excessive force, as they are a specialized unit trained to respond to terrorism and violent crime; over time, the NYPD has conflated terrorism and protest, leading to the deployment of officers and militarized gear to largely nonviolent demonstrations.”

The Public Advocate’s full remarks as delivered are below.

STATEMENT AS DELIVERED BY PUBLIC ADVOCATE JUMAANE D. WILLIAMS

TO THE NEW YORK CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

MARCH 1, 2023

Good morning,

My name is Jumaane D. Williams, and I am the Public Advocate for the City of New York. I would like to thank Chair Hanks and the members of the Committee on Public Safety for holding this important hearing, and thank everyone for being here. Particularly with the administration and NYPD not being here – I held out hope that they would, I think it’s shameful and an affront to this Council and to New York city as a whole. I understand that there are some legal concerns, I do think just being present, even if it was to read the statement that was submitted, would have shown some respect to the process and to having this conversation in a public forum.

In 2015, the NYPD formed the Strategic Response Group—or SRG—to combat terrorism. This is a voluntary unit that has attracted officers who reportedly want to see “more action,” and outfits them with riot gear and heavy weaponry, including military-grade Long Range Acoustic Devices (LRADs) and machine guns. Originally, the unit was to consist of 350 officers with a budget of $13 million; quickly, that ballooned to more than 700 officers with nearly $90 million in funds, including $10.2 million in overtime last year alone.

The SRG’s involvement in policing protests, as we have seen, seem to be more about suppressing speech and assembly, and less about keeping everyone safe. Following criticism of the SRG potentially policing large-scale protests, the NYPD claimed in 2015 that the SRG would not be involved in covering protests; however, the NYPD began deploying the SRG to protests later that year. 

The results of the SRG’s presence at protests have been aggressive and chaotic, and have invariably escalated nonviolent protests into dangerous and violent environments. The SRG beat protestors with batons; sprayed crowds with pepper spray; rammed into protestors on their bikes; entrapped protestors using barriers such as shields, bikes, and metal gates with no way for people to escape (a tactic known as “kettling”); and blasted crowds with noise cannons. I myself have had the brunt of over-response to protest, several protests, including SRG, including at Occupy Wall Street and at the George Floyd protests of 2020. I’ve also filmed and witnessed it. 

Many SRG unit members have multiple misconduct complaints against them: of the 62 SRG officers and supervisors identified by The Appeal in videos from 2020 protests, 46 SRG members had 292 misconduct allegations filed against them with the Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB). These complaints included abuse of authority, excessive force, offensive language, and discourtesy. Considering this history, the SRG’s abusive behavior is unsurprising.

Further, a report published last month examining complaints of police misconduct investigated by the CCRB revealed that the CCRB was only able to substantiate 88 of 321 complaints received. The reason this number is so low is not because misconduct did not occur; rather, NYPD officers engaged in purposeful actions to conceal their identity to avoid identification. The NYPD also impeded CCRB investigations by delaying responses to requests for body-worn camera footage, claiming footage did not exist, turning over the wrong footage, and refusing to be interviewed remotely. I would say some of the things that were substantiated by CCRB in the past, some of the worst ones, are officers lying, on record, and nothing happened.

The SRG does not police all protestors equally. This was best exemplified in 2018, when the SRG allowed the Proud Boys to march without a permit, and backed away when they began to beat and shout homophobic slurs at counter-protestors. If my memory serves me correctly, they were also ushered into the train without having to pay their fare. Most recently, the SRG was present at a rally held by an anti-trans group, at which a number of transgender rights activists and supporters counter-protested. The SRG, which those present at the protest reported outnumbered the counter-protestors, engaged in a physical altercation with the counter-protestors, arresting nine.

Deploying the SRG to police protests has demonstrably resulted in unnecessary abuse and violence, and their presence should no longer be allowed at protests. It is unsurprising that the SRG frequently uses excessive force, as they are a specialized unit trained to respond to terrorism and violent crime; over time, the NYPD has conflated terrorism and protest, leading to the deployment of officers and militarized gear to largely nonviolent demonstrations. Even the NYPD referred to their response to the 2020 protests as an “inefficient deployment of resources.”

The SRG’s behavior has resulted in numerous lawsuits and complaints against the NYPD and New York City, resulting in a significant financial burden on a city still recovering from the COVID-19 pandemic. The city must, at a minimum, require greater transparency from the NYPD and the SRG on training, disciplinary records, and allegations of abuse. I look forward to working with the Committee on Public Safety and the City Council, and hopefully, the administration themselves and NYPD, to create safe and equitable communities for all New Yorkers.

I do want to say – it is very hard to be shocked that a unit that was trained to address and deal with terrorism, then sent to deal with nonviolent protests, would now have the kind of response we have seen. I understand the need to have people trained to address and deal with terrorism and violent crime. Sending that same unit to deal with nonviolent protests will only lead to the type of videos and things that we have seen, so hopefully, even without coming to this hearing, there are changes on the way, and I look forward to seeing what that would be. 

Thank you.

Public Advocate Jumaane D. Williams on Friday condemned the abuse of facial recognition technology for targeting and denying the rights of New Yorkers. During an oversight hearing of the Committee on Consumer and Worker Protection led by Chair Marjorie Velázquez, he presented several of the dangers of ‘non-consensual data capture,’ and argued for regulations and restrictions to prevent intrusions and injustices.

“While there are security concerns that impact the decision making of private businesses, the City of New York cannot let businesses broadly use facial recognition technology and run afoul of everyone’s right to privacy as granted under the U.S. Constitution,” argued Public Advocate Williams.

The Public Advocate’s comments, and the hearing itself, focused on MSG Entertainment’s reported use of facial recognition to bar and remove individuals from events at its venues based on the attendee’s connections to legal action against the company. This facial recognition-fueled ‘blacklisting’ has drawn intense scrutiny and condemnation.

“We must engage in discussions now on how to address and prevent the use and abuse of all these technologies,” continued the Public Advocate. “It can’t be left up to businesses and big corporations, or to a few billionaires and millionaires.”

The Public Advocate and his office have long been engaged with issues surrounding facial recognition, partnering with advocates on the Ban the Scan campaign in 2021 to raise awareness of and create protections around the dangers of both public and private use of the tool. In addition to privacy concerns, he has repeatedly highlighted issues of racial injustice with this technology – which is far more likely to mis-identify Black individuals.

The Public Advocate’s full comments from today’s hearing are below.

STATEMENT AS DELIVERED BY PUBLIC ADVOCATE JUMAANE D. WILLIAMS

TO THE NEW YORK CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON CONSUMER AND WORKER PROTECTION

FEBRUARY 24, 2023

Good afternoon,

My name is Jumaane D. Williams, and I am the Public Advocate for the City of New York. I would like to thank Chair Velázquez and the members of the Committee on Consumer and Worker Protection for holding this hearing and for allowing me to say a few words. I want to start by aligning myself with your words, and with your awesome article in City and State today.

Fundamentally, New Yorkers are protected by the First Amendment’s right to privacy. Individuals should expect that they can freely conduct private transactions without being surveilled. To that end, in 2021 my office partnered with then Borough President Gale Brewer, Amnesty International, S.T.O.P, and AI For the People on a Ban the Scan campaign, raising awareness of the dangers of public and private use of facial recognition AI. At that time I asked the previous administration to 1- Cease use of all facial recognition technology, 2 - Permanently destroy data collected and used for facial recognition in the past, and 3 - Publish data concerning each instance in which facial recognition technology was utilized.

Through non-consensual data capture, businesses violate the right to privacy, and we’ve also seen much concern when it comes to law enforcement. Individuals should not be removed from a place of business, because their employer is involved in legal action against said business. Especially when the business engages in its trade, in the case at hand—selling tickets to events, and then reneges to allow the purchaser/employee to redeem the ticket they purchased. The employee is not involved in the litigation. If any business could monitor and remove people because of a grievance against an employer or someone they have a relationship with, it would mean a world where businesses have the right to bar anybody from any establishment based on a tangential connection. Moreover, there was another instance where a parent was denied entry to an event on a school trip in which they were serving as an escort. This act created safety risk for the children as well as creating a stressful situation for the other adult who had to care for more children on their own. 

Furthermore, citizens should not be photographed, recorded, and have personal information scanned without any repercussions. In today’s economy, privacy is highly valuable. As our data broker economy continues to grow, there must be measures in place to protect New Yorkers’ privacy. It is unclear today whether facial recognition software used in private businesses is also selling the information to data brokers.

While there are security concerns that impact the decision making of private businesses, the City of New York cannot let businesses broadly use facial recognition technology and run afoul of everyone’s right to privacy as granted under the U.S. Constitution. It is important to note the many documented instances of facial recognition technology having racial and gender biases. Researchers at MIT reported in January 2019 reported that facial recognition software marketed by Amazon misidentified darker-skinned women 31% of the time, while others have “shown that algorithms used in facial recognition return false at a higher rate for African Americans than white people unless explicitly recalibrated for a black population.” Specifically, the technology misidentifies people with dark complexions 15% of the time as compared to only 3% for people with light complexions, we’ve also heard similar numbers when it comes to people of transgender experience. These findings prompted experts at Google, Facebook, and Microsoft to sign a letter calling on Amazon to stop selling its facial-recognition technology to law enforcement.

Also, facial recognition technology is only one of several biometrics technologies being developed for identification purposes. Others include Long-range cardiac signature detection, Gait analysis, and an Iris scan. We must engage in discussions now on how to address and prevent the use and abuse of all these technologies. It can’t be left up to businesses and big corporations, or to a few billionaires and millionaires.

I also just want to say as a person who suffers from the disease of ‘Knick-fandom’ when it comes to MSG, I have been scarred by many of the decisions of owner James Dolan - I have to say it’s getting a little better now, so putting that out there. But as a New Yorker, many of the antics of the owner are much worse, much more harmful, from removing people from MSG to this use of facial recognition.

I do want to put on the record that I also believe we should be reviewing the renewal of the tax abatements and exploring moving MSG as well. My hope is that someone would have been here from MSG to answer some of these questions, it is really important. There’s a point where private and public really come in connection, and we can't allow it to just run amok – government has to step in.

So I’m glad we’re having this hearing, and thank you very much, Madam Chair.