Vote counting and deciding what to move to floor is a complex calculation.
In this case (I am guessing) the calculation was not to put their members at risk of attacks from the powerful real estate industry (while housing advocates wont be completely happy either since the "grand bargain" they would have passed certainly won't have close to everything advocates are asking for) , all to get a veto from the gov, where no doubt her posture would have been the bill doesn't go far enough even though she doesn't want that either. Moreover, if the legislators that are on the fence now vote for the deal and it gets vetoed and is reopened next year, next time around they'll have limited flexibility externally (having already voted on the things in the bill), and limited leverage internally (having already shown their cards on the table).
So as they strategize to balance policy and politics, on controversial bills you have all sorts of legislators, those:
- who will not vote for a bill if there is no 3way deal to make it law (they don't want to risk backlash from industry unless it means something)
- who will not vote for a bill if there IS a deal, they'd only vote if it'll be vetoed or passes only one house (they feel the pressure from district but don't agree with policy)
- who will vote yes and then push everyone to be confrontational with Gov, risking other negotiations, and will also call their colleagues out in order to increase vote count (they believe in the principle, but they won't factor that other things can be derailed that might matter more to other people - so they'll happily risk the legislature's ability to get criminal justice or health priorities or something else in play, for housing policy since they made that the focus of their career or are closer to advocates in that space)
- who will vote no but internally say yes (they agree with the policy but their electoral politics doesn't allow it)
- who will vote yes only if there are a few extra votes lined up (They cant be the deciding votes but can justify of the passage is a foregone conclusion)
- who will vote no, no matter what, and would press their colleagues to say no as well (they can also backchannel with the gov or assembly to press them to not accept the deal to tank it but also depress the votes in their house as well)
- who will say yes publicly but internally say no and will ask their leadership not make them vote
The list is not exhaustive and there is some overlap of course, but the point is that vote counting isn't really just tallying the yes votes and move the bill to the floor.
I am sure Ross knows this as with a couple of word changes, this insight could almost be a generic template explaining similar kinds of elected official calculations for bills with powerful opposing constituencies not just in NY State, but in many other legislatures. Which is not to say that it wasn't a valuable post.
Hopefully, Ross will reply to what we have written soon.
It's always risky to go ahead with something and get vetoed. The issue here seems to be, they announced a "grand deal" and claimed to have the votes and then did nothing about it. If these votes existed for an enormous housing package, they can dare Hochul to veto the enormous housing package. Politically, Hochul could suffer for it. I get the strategy of not passing anything, but then what is your plan for the future? Wait another year, hope she changes her mind? At some point, you'll have to fight.
So much blame to go around. Hochul didn't try to build any support for her housing plan, and appeared uninterested in any legislating beyond bail reform, increasing charters, and the cost of CUNY/SUNY. Embarrassing, especially with a state with a nearly quarter TRILLION dollar budget. Hochul, and Adams for that matter, lack of basic political imagination or will to either push for a stronger vision of our city/state, or even coordinate amongst other electeds. Can we at least get the assembly/senate to committee to their proposed budget or some set of bills that implies they'll challenge Hochul to veto measures put on her desk...
I think this was the one and only time Hochul had a good idea, the housing compact was a good idea, but needed support. My only criticism is that she gave her detractors ample time and opportunity to paint this as an “expansion of the dangerous dirty big city” that will consume the suburbs and make them new boroughs, as if we need more Staten Islands. She’s trying to appear as dogmatic as Cuomo with the authority of geriatric who just had a stroke and keeps thinking it’s 1987.
Interesting how the Wonder twins are so scared of a governor that was so weak that the legislature had to clarify that they would derail a Zeldin administration. They know Hochul is weak, but they’re choking over the political calculus that could determine wether or not they have something they want to cross her even though the legislature has been pretty content in its due diligence in beating back some of her worst proposals (minus the housing pact). Good job on the article, I’ll make sure to mention yours in my upcoming essay about the housing crisis in NY!
Not to sound conspiratorial or cynical, but is it possible that some of the State Senators and Assembly persons voted for these housing measures with a wink to the Real Estate lobby, with the unsaid understanding that the Governor would not sign and that a veto vote would not come to the floor?
Ross' post says "After months of deliberations both during and after the budget process, the Legislature was able to work toward an agreement on historic rent protections as well as a massive and transformational housing program..." So, substitute "came to an agreement" for "voted" (my assumption was that you had to have a vote of some sort to come to an agreement, but perhaps that is not correct) and the meaning is more or less the same.
I'm not invested in defending Hochul or the legislature but the latter did not introduce a bill, so no one had to vote on a bill. They just said, after the fact, that they reached an unspecified agreement. https://twitter.com/ZachReports/status/1666885857637269504
Hochul was not given a bill she could sign and no one has to explain any specific provisions of a hypothetical bll, because none were made public.
You are quite right to be confused. Ross also says they have the votes to override a veto, whereas spokesman Murphy says they do not. You would think Ross would address this discrepancy, but he does not and we are left unsure what to believe.
Suburban Dems opposed chunks of Hochul’s plan ... the negotiations are within the Democratic caucus, Albany is as functional, or dysfunctional as any other state, 15,000 bills are introduced, May 300 become law, btw, the next budget cycle is beginning now, Read Joanne Freeman’s book about the Congress in the 1840s, 1850s ...
Seems to me that any city over a million people - a population that would far exceed some state's entire population - should be able to function, essentially as a state, with its own budget, taxes, and two senators.
After all, we're the ones who pay for everything. Perhaps we should have a say in how out money gets spent
NYC is the one sending all these people to Albany dude! Heastie is from NYC! Stewart-Cousins is from Yonkers, before her the IDC kept picking up more and more seats in NYC with zero opposition from the "real" democrats. The overwhelming majority of senate democrats are from NYC. And of course, NYC loved Cuomo who spent his entire regime screwing over NYC local elected officials (who also themselves oppose NYC local control over building heights for example). Other states can blame gerrymandering. NYC can blame itself.
In my opinion, Jeff Coltin and Chris Sommerfeldt both do a decent job of holding city politicos to account... problem is people don't read newspapers anymore.
Well, of course some people read papers, and others read online, but as someone who used to work for papers, and now publishes a community paper, I feel that with the immediacy of the internet, people don't rely as much on the printed product, which in my opinion is always a much better way to get a balanced view of what's going on, rather then being fed what you already agree with.
Vote counting and deciding what to move to floor is a complex calculation.
In this case (I am guessing) the calculation was not to put their members at risk of attacks from the powerful real estate industry (while housing advocates wont be completely happy either since the "grand bargain" they would have passed certainly won't have close to everything advocates are asking for) , all to get a veto from the gov, where no doubt her posture would have been the bill doesn't go far enough even though she doesn't want that either. Moreover, if the legislators that are on the fence now vote for the deal and it gets vetoed and is reopened next year, next time around they'll have limited flexibility externally (having already voted on the things in the bill), and limited leverage internally (having already shown their cards on the table).
So as they strategize to balance policy and politics, on controversial bills you have all sorts of legislators, those:
- who will not vote for a bill if there is no 3way deal to make it law (they don't want to risk backlash from industry unless it means something)
- who will not vote for a bill if there IS a deal, they'd only vote if it'll be vetoed or passes only one house (they feel the pressure from district but don't agree with policy)
- who will vote yes and then push everyone to be confrontational with Gov, risking other negotiations, and will also call their colleagues out in order to increase vote count (they believe in the principle, but they won't factor that other things can be derailed that might matter more to other people - so they'll happily risk the legislature's ability to get criminal justice or health priorities or something else in play, for housing policy since they made that the focus of their career or are closer to advocates in that space)
- who will vote no but internally say yes (they agree with the policy but their electoral politics doesn't allow it)
- who will vote yes only if there are a few extra votes lined up (They cant be the deciding votes but can justify of the passage is a foregone conclusion)
- who will vote no, no matter what, and would press their colleagues to say no as well (they can also backchannel with the gov or assembly to press them to not accept the deal to tank it but also depress the votes in their house as well)
- who will say yes publicly but internally say no and will ask their leadership not make them vote
The list is not exhaustive and there is some overlap of course, but the point is that vote counting isn't really just tallying the yes votes and move the bill to the floor.
You seem to know more about this than Barkan, which is interesting considering how often he pesters me to pay him to write about it.
I am sure Ross knows this as with a couple of word changes, this insight could almost be a generic template explaining similar kinds of elected official calculations for bills with powerful opposing constituencies not just in NY State, but in many other legislatures. Which is not to say that it wasn't a valuable post.
Hopefully, Ross will reply to what we have written soon.
It's always risky to go ahead with something and get vetoed. The issue here seems to be, they announced a "grand deal" and claimed to have the votes and then did nothing about it. If these votes existed for an enormous housing package, they can dare Hochul to veto the enormous housing package. Politically, Hochul could suffer for it. I get the strategy of not passing anything, but then what is your plan for the future? Wait another year, hope she changes her mind? At some point, you'll have to fight.
So much blame to go around. Hochul didn't try to build any support for her housing plan, and appeared uninterested in any legislating beyond bail reform, increasing charters, and the cost of CUNY/SUNY. Embarrassing, especially with a state with a nearly quarter TRILLION dollar budget. Hochul, and Adams for that matter, lack of basic political imagination or will to either push for a stronger vision of our city/state, or even coordinate amongst other electeds. Can we at least get the assembly/senate to committee to their proposed budget or some set of bills that implies they'll challenge Hochul to veto measures put on her desk...
I think this was the one and only time Hochul had a good idea, the housing compact was a good idea, but needed support. My only criticism is that she gave her detractors ample time and opportunity to paint this as an “expansion of the dangerous dirty big city” that will consume the suburbs and make them new boroughs, as if we need more Staten Islands. She’s trying to appear as dogmatic as Cuomo with the authority of geriatric who just had a stroke and keeps thinking it’s 1987.
well said ross
this is a national problem with communities unwilling to accept "others'
historically true in the country - just remember Levittown for example
nothing much has changed unfortunately - the pattern continues
Interesting how the Wonder twins are so scared of a governor that was so weak that the legislature had to clarify that they would derail a Zeldin administration. They know Hochul is weak, but they’re choking over the political calculus that could determine wether or not they have something they want to cross her even though the legislature has been pretty content in its due diligence in beating back some of her worst proposals (minus the housing pact). Good job on the article, I’ll make sure to mention yours in my upcoming essay about the housing crisis in NY!
Not to sound conspiratorial or cynical, but is it possible that some of the State Senators and Assembly persons voted for these housing measures with a wink to the Real Estate lobby, with the unsaid understanding that the Governor would not sign and that a veto vote would not come to the floor?
No one voted for anything. No bill was introduced much less passed
Ross' post says "After months of deliberations both during and after the budget process, the Legislature was able to work toward an agreement on historic rent protections as well as a massive and transformational housing program..." So, substitute "came to an agreement" for "voted" (my assumption was that you had to have a vote of some sort to come to an agreement, but perhaps that is not correct) and the meaning is more or less the same.
I'm not invested in defending Hochul or the legislature but the latter did not introduce a bill, so no one had to vote on a bill. They just said, after the fact, that they reached an unspecified agreement. https://twitter.com/ZachReports/status/1666885857637269504
Hochul was not given a bill she could sign and no one has to explain any specific provisions of a hypothetical bll, because none were made public.
Would like to hear what Ross has to say on this because something doesn't quite add up here for me...
You are quite right to be confused. Ross also says they have the votes to override a veto, whereas spokesman Murphy says they do not. You would think Ross would address this discrepancy, but he does not and we are left unsure what to believe.
Suburban Dems opposed chunks of Hochul’s plan ... the negotiations are within the Democratic caucus, Albany is as functional, or dysfunctional as any other state, 15,000 bills are introduced, May 300 become law, btw, the next budget cycle is beginning now, Read Joanne Freeman’s book about the Congress in the 1840s, 1850s ...
Seems to me that any city over a million people - a population that would far exceed some state's entire population - should be able to function, essentially as a state, with its own budget, taxes, and two senators.
After all, we're the ones who pay for everything. Perhaps we should have a say in how out money gets spent
NYC is the one sending all these people to Albany dude! Heastie is from NYC! Stewart-Cousins is from Yonkers, before her the IDC kept picking up more and more seats in NYC with zero opposition from the "real" democrats. The overwhelming majority of senate democrats are from NYC. And of course, NYC loved Cuomo who spent his entire regime screwing over NYC local elected officials (who also themselves oppose NYC local control over building heights for example). Other states can blame gerrymandering. NYC can blame itself.
yeah new york state politics are as much just the politics of queens, than other suburbs that gets blamed for why the city can't have nice things.
I don't understand why it would 'kill good cause for good,' is that true, or just a copout?
Cop out. I'm sure Mike Murphy isn't used to a member of the press that doesn't just roll over, take notes, and publish.
Comfort the afflicted, and afflict the comfortable.
In my opinion, Jeff Coltin and Chris Sommerfeldt both do a decent job of holding city politicos to account... problem is people don't read newspapers anymore.
Do you have any data to back that up?
Well, of course some people read papers, and others read online, but as someone who used to work for papers, and now publishes a community paper, I feel that with the immediacy of the internet, people don't rely as much on the printed product, which in my opinion is always a much better way to get a balanced view of what's going on, rather then being fed what you already agree with.
This just came out... https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/fewer-people-trust-traditional-media-more-turn-tiktok-news-report-says-2023-06-13/