Transcript: Mayor de Blasio Appears Live On The Brian Lehrer Show

August 10, 2018

Brian Lehrer: Good morning everyone and we’ll begin as we usually do on Fridays with our weekly Ask The Mayor segment. My question and yours – questions – and yours for Mayor Bill de Blasio, yes I will ask him more than one. 212-433-WNYC if you want to be one of the askers, 212-433-9692, or you can tweet a question: just use the hashtag #AskTheMayor. Mr. Mayor, good morning, welcome back to WNYC.

Mayor Bill de Blasio: Good morning, Brian.

Lehrer: Let me start today with some questions about criminal justice. As of last week, the NYPD was still not complying with a law to release demographic data, like race, sex, and age, every three months on who was arrested for fare evasions in the subways and at what stations. The law, as you know, is designed largely to see if there’s racial discrimination in that, and you said they would begin complying. Sir, can you give us an update?

Mayor: Absolutely. I spoke to Commissioner O’Neill about this yesterday in fact; we will be putting forward a policy, this month, August, to align with a law which I find and believe in, which is to make sure we have transparency on these issues. And if it generates a healthy public discussion about what enforcement should look like I think that’s good. It’s normal that between the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch there may be differences on some specifics and the NYPD has to be very sensitive to making sure that strategic considerations are taken into account. Obviously, we do not want to do something in the vein of putting out information that actually leads to more law-breaking. We have to be mindful of that. But I’m very certain we’ll have a policy out this month that will fully conform to the law.

Lehrer: What do you mean by put out information that could lead to more law-breaking? How could that happen?

Mayor: I think – I think it’s really important for people to recognize that the NYPD is charged with enforcing the laws we have and we’ve tried to be, I think, smart and creative in how to approach the proper application of the law. For example, deciding not to arrest for low-level marijuana possession originally, now we’ve evolved that policy further until we won’t arrest for other marijuana offenses, certain other marijuana offenses, but we will, of course, give summons. But the bottom line is it’s going against the law so there will be enforcement, there will be consequences for anything that’s against the law. Fare evasion is against the law. There are some folks who try to say, oh shouldn’t we just look the other way on that en masse; I don’t agree with that. I think the vast majority of New Yorkers pay their fare and they rightfully demand that there be a common standard, and a fair universal standard. So we want to be careful about not putting out information that in anyway implies that there’s places where you could or could not evade your fare. You’re not allowed to evade your fare anywhere.

Lehrer: What does it say about the rule of law in New York City, though, when it’s the NYPD that refuses for months to comply?

Mayor: I don’t agree with that statement. The, again, I really think the facts matter here; legislation was passed, I signed it. The NYPD is a – an agency that’s part of my administration. We absolutely believe in that transparency and we will honor that transparency. But there are differences between the Legislative Branch and the Executive Branch on how to specifically do that. And what specific details to include, that’s normal. That’s true in any democratic society. The bottom line is we will comply with the law; we will do it in a timely manner. We’ll do it in a way that we think both respects the need for transparency and the demands of public safety.

Lehrer: Can you talk a little more about the dilemma? I think that’s fair way to describe what you’re expressing and what you feel, that, you know, you want to reduce arrests for small things that add up to mass incarceration. But you don’t want to defund the subways, or make fare payers feel like chumps when there are no consequences for fair evaders. Can you talk about it as a dilemma?

Mayor: Yeah, I think it’s a good and healthy conversation to have. The, and by the way, I’ve talked about these issues at a lot of town hall meetings, I’ve had, I think it’s 55 town hall meetings around the city and it’s very interesting how really clearly the majority of the people at the meetings where this has come up believe it’s crucial to respect the fair payers, the vast majority, and honor the fact that there has to be a single universal standard, while obviously not wanting to further mass incarceration. In fact, we are entirely focused on reducing mass incarceration. In this city, since I took office, incarceration levels are down 28 percent, we have the lowest number of people in our corrections system that we’ve had in generations. So we’re very focused on that but there has to be the rule of law and universal standards that people can respect and so I think the balance that you’re raising is we’ve got to figure out how to say okay, if you don’t like the law, by the way, change the law. Let’s start by fair point. If you want a entirely, free subway system, I don’t know how on Earth you’d pay for it, but if you want to do that, okay work for that. If you want marijuana allowed everywhere, you can work for that. But we note, in the states even that have legalized marijuana, smoking in public is still not allowed and there’s still a sanction. So these issues come up in almost all of these situations but the bottom line from my point of view is to clinically say, okay the public demands safety, the public demands fair, universal standards, and the public believes in the rule of law. At the same time we want to reduce mass incarceration, we want to reduce disparity in enforcement, and we want maximum transparency. How do we balance those factors? And actually over the years, I found we can do it with some painstaking work. And I look at the city today, versus five years ago; I think we got a lot more information out, a lot more healthy discussion of disparity issues, a lot more creative approaches to reduce mass incarceration. I mean the number of arrests alone, now this is the essence of fighting mass incarceration, reduce arrests. We have 100,000 fewer arrests last year than we did four years ago and the city got safer. So, I think we’re in a very powerful – a positive moment here, but it something we work on every day to strike that balance.

Lehrer: Along similar lines perhaps, all this week here on WNYC we’ve been airing our series by reporter Mirela Iverac on the largest gang takedown in city history that happened two years ago in The Bronx. As you know, 120 people were arrested. You’re a big supporter of gang and crew takedowns, as I understand it. You’ve said they helped bring down crime rates to levels not seen since the 1950s, they have done that. But throughout the series we’ve seen a number of people, mostly young men of color, who sold weed, facing federal, not local, racketeering conspiracy charges and I’m curious why when your reforming marijuana enforcement here are you throwing some of these kids through federal charges into the hands of Jeff Sessions?

Mayor: Well I want to differentiate.  I don’t have all the facts on all the individuals and the charges against them but I feel I can make a general point of what you said. First of all, the gang takedowns are hugely important. People in this city know that we’ve made huge progress on safety; we are the safest we’ve been since the 1950’s, but we still have some parts of the city that are far from safe enough. We’ve got a lot more work to do, and a central problem is literally a few thousand violent individuals primarily associated with gangs and crews. The horrible, disgusting murder of Junior Feliz up in The Bronx is an example of why people want to see the very aggressive, very aggressive enforcement by NYPD on gangs. And those takedowns mean you arrest a large number of gang members, capture their weapons, their drugs, everything simultaneously, in one fell swoop, and they’re all prosecuted. But here’s the point, I don’t want us to mistake someone who selling marijuana it’s illegal to sell marijuana, but if someone is doing it on a low level, then it’s different reality than if someone who is doing it as part of a criminal enterprise, a violent gang that involves itself in murder and whole host of other violent activities as part of an approach. Those gangs must be disrupted. There must be serious consequences for the members. The only way we will dissuade a number of other people from attempting that approach is if they see there are real consequences and for too many years there weren’t. So I want to separate – I think a lot of times when we’d be asked the question, not unfairly, you think about the small individual, the little guy kind of situation. We’re not talking about that. We’re talking about a highly organized criminal enterprise that has, in many cases, created an immense amount of violence for a community that must be dismantled, that must be destroyed.

Lehrer: Are those the only –

Mayor: That only happens with those serious prosecutions.

Lehrer: Those are the only ones, you’re saying, that go to the federal prosecution system?

Mayor: Again, not only am I not a lawyer, I’m not an expert on how cases go to the federal system versus the state system, but I would say the more serious the case, obviously, and if it involves an organization that operates in multiple states, etcetera, those are the dynamics that often lead to going to the federal system. But this balance, I say this as a progressive who believes in civil liberties and believes in addressing structural racism fundamentally; at same time we have to defeat violence in our society.  And that does involve creating real consequences and talk to people in neighborhoods all over the city who’ve been terrorized by gangs in their midst; they want to see real consequences but in a way that strikes a balance so the last thing I want to see is low level offenders suffer from incarceration. But serious dedicated criminals who are part of highly organized gangs; those are folks who actually deserve long-term incarceration.

Lehrer: So one more follow up question on this. As a progressive who’s trying to fight structural racism while trying to do law enforcement as mayor, Mirela’s series looks at the effects on a community, for better and worse, when so many young people are removed from it all at once, 120 in this Bronx instance, some of them only mildly involved in a gang, are you contributing to something we should call mass incarceration?

Mayor: I – I want to emphasize – no, I do not believe we are because first of all, I don’t know the specifics of this case, and nor what you’re reporting has portrayed and I’m happy to look at it and respond further, but here’s the bottom line: you’re not going to get a serious charge – in this approach we’re taking today – you’re not going to get a serious charge if you haven’t done a serious crime. So the notion of someone who is vaguely associated with a gang ending up in the same situation as someone who is a, if you will, full time member of a criminal enterprise, I dispute that, I think – charges will align to the level of involvement and activity. But I also, think, and I will caution all my fellow progressives, including folks who perhaps are not experiencing the reality of crime in their everyday life; let’s listen to the folks who have to live with it at the community level, at the grassroots. They would be the first to say we have to end mass incarceration and we have to end the injustices of the past. And at the same time they should not be terrorized by violent criminals. And we have to strike a balance and there is a progressive way of doing that and a fair way of doing that. That’s what we are trying to achieve.

Lehrer: It’s Ask the Mayor on the Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC as every Friday from 10:00 am to 10:30 am. 212-433-WNYC, for Mayor Bill de Blasio and Tania in Brooklyn, you’re on WNYC with the Mayor, hello.

Question: Thanks for taking my call and thanks for having this platform with the Mayor and thank you for accepting it. I don’t want to change the subject and I know mass incarceration is very important but my stance is about Uber and how will this affect me. I’m an African American woman I take Uber, my daughter uses it. If we are going into Manhattan, how would it affect us getting back home from Manhattan with this cap and things like that, how would that affect us? Because cabs never pick up African Americans and now I really have no sympathy for the cab drivers, they don’t service me so why would I, I just don’t feel sympathy for cab drivers, they don’t feel sympathy for African Americans, I don’t feel it for them. I just want to know how that Uber is going to affect me getting into the city and how would it affect me getting back out?

Mayor: Tania let me speak to that and I appreciate the question a lot. I think it is an important issue to talk about. I’m your fellow Brooklynite so I see this from the perspective of the outer boroughs as well. But I want to dispute immediately one thing you said, even though I know you said it with a whole heart, I’ve talked to a lot of cab drivers and they happen to be of all backgrounds and in fact the gentleman who introduced me at the vent we did yesterday happens to hail from Africa. I think cab drivers come from all backgrounds, I think cab drivers like everyone else, there’s a lot who do respect the law and respect the idea of treating everyone fairly and there are some bad apples. Now the bad apples now suffer a lot greater consequences than in the past. I checked the facts on this. And when anyone brings a case of being discriminated against, refused service by a cab driver, to the Taxi and Limousine Commission, the rate of substantiation, meaning someone brings a case and says I was discriminated against, those cases 50 percent of the time are confirmed and then the penalties are very intense. The first penalty is financial; I believe it $1,000 fine for the driver. The second penalty is the driver’s license is suspended to be able to be a cab driver. The third penalty is it’s revoked and they can no longer be a cab driver. So those are serious penalties and a serious rate of enforcement and in fact, we working with the City Council are going to intensify outreach efforts to the public to get as much reporting as possible and to train cab drivers to understand they cannot treat anyone that way.

But the second part of the question is how do you get around. Right now, typical Uber vehicles, 40 percent of them, plus, 40 percent have no one in them, no passenger and are driving around waiting for business, clogging the streets, creating more pollution but most importantly for those drivers, driving down their wages. These drivers, it’s been studied, live on sub minimum wage because what Uber did very cynically was flooded the market with too many vehicles and too many drivers. This pause that we are creating, there are still going to be a lot of vehicles available to you and your family Tania. But the fact is we are going to finally be able to create something fair and rational and fair to the drivers as well because a lot of those vehicles driving around empty will now have customers because the market will start to balance again.

Question: Thank you because now I understand the situation and I’m all for that because I don’t want it clogging up Manhattan either.

Mayor: Thank you, I appreciate that.

Lehrer: How about that Mr. Mayor. A conversation with a disgruntled citizen who then says she heard your argument.

Mayor: Well Brian I find that honestly this may be a shock to some observers but I find that to be very typical and certainly our Town Hall meetings are a great example of give and take. Sometimes people convince me I’m missing something, sometimes I convince them they are missing something but I find the vast majority of New Yorkers are into having a serious dialogue about the issues affecting them and are very constructive about it.

Lehrer: I will follow up on one thing from that exchange. The issue that I feel like I hear from a lot of African Americans in the city is not simply that some yellow cabs will pass them up when they are trying to hail them and that’s the kind of enforcement I think you were just talking about. It’s that they don’t even go to their neighborhoods.

Mayor: Well again, the world has changed a lot in the last few years. Not only all the for hire vehicles, and they will continue to be a part of the landscape, they just won’t be endlessly proliferating and creating this ridiculous situation that drives down wages and creates congestions and everyone loses. There’s still – right now we are freezing in place the number we have, we have too many as it is. So there’s not going to be a problem with getting a for hire vehicle. There’s the green cabs that didn’t even use to exist but now obviously serve the outer boroughs. There’s the car services that always used to be the mainstay and certainly what I relied on for years and years in Brooklyn. On top of everything else we are trying to do to expand mass transit, select bus service, ferry service, biking. All of these pieces contribute to giving people better options to move around. They are all moving simultaneously. The one thing we are doing here is not allowing a corporate giant to flood our streets artificially with vehicles that aren’t even being used. We are rationalizing the situation and balancing the pieces better.

Lehrer: Let’s take another call on this. Abdul in Manhattan who I believe is an Uber driver or taxi driver, Abdul you’re on WNYC, hello.

Question: Good morning Mr. Mayor, and Mr. Brian. How you guys doing?

Lehrer: Alright.

Mayor: Good man.

Question: I got two points but first of all, I would like to tell Brian I got fired from my first job because I listened to you too much, I couldn’t drive and listen to your show and not get fired. Alright. I think I have –

Lehrer: I don’t even know what to say to that. Drivers listen to the Brian Lehrer Show, I feel like one of these alcohol you know companies that says with their advertising their product and they say but remember drink responsibly, so drivers listen to the Brian Lehrer Show responsibly. Anyway Abdul go ahead.

Mayor: I got two points, one for Mr. Mayor and one for Brian yourself. The number one point is how [inaudible] not answer the first caller’s question, I think –

Lehrer: Are you a yellow cab driver Abdul? Do you drive a yellow cab?

Question: I’m an Uber driver but I work with via much.

Lehrer: Okay.

Question: I think every driver should have a camera on his car and the reason why I say that though is I had an issue with Uber is that a lady put a destination and she didn’t want to arrive at that destination and we had a little argument about that so she complained to Uber and lied and said that I was drunk driving. Which I never do because I don’t drink, I’m a Muslim. So Uber took her side and didn’t listen to my story and even though I told her I have camera to prove that I’m right. So they would rather [inaudible] as a driver because I’m always replaceable but they cannot lose the client.

Lehrer: So are you proposing cameras on cars almost like police have the body cameras now?

Question: Yes, yes. Not a body camera but it should be recording every conversation and it should be outside so in case a black person stops him and that person says the cab driver never stops because I’m black, they can look at the camera, if it’s true or it’s not true. So there you go, there’s a simple answer to your question.

Lehrer: Alright, Mr. Mayor.

Mayor: Well Abdul it’s a really interesting idea. I mean I want to emphasize obviously in a system like Uber where there’s the reviews by passengers is one thing I think there’s a different dynamic than say a yellow cab but I do think you raise an interesting point about whether there would be a virtue there for ensuring that disputes can be addressed and certainly for addressing any instance of discrimination. I’m not sure if a camera would capture everything we need to. But I think it’s an interesting proposal. I’ll certainly ask the Taxi and Limousine Commission to look at it. I do want to emphasize that the notion that the individual customer today in the current system we have, separate from Uber, I’m talking about with yellow cabs here, obviously they can report anything they consider inappropriate and there is follow up. And again on discrimination specifically, 50 percent of those cases were proven right and there were real penalties. So I think we have some strong tools right now but it’s certainly worth a look whether technology can help us do it better.

Lehrer: One other thing on the City Council pass and I guess you are going to sign it next week, one year cap on the number of Uber, etcetera cars to study their impact. What happens after the one year study? What metrics would trigger what kinds of more permanent actions that you would conceivably consider?

Mayor: Well I think that the good news is Brian, I think this is going to have ramifications around the country and around the world in fact because you’ve seen these conflicts between these giant corporations like Uber and local governments that were simply trying to create some regulations, some fairness and some rules. These huge corporations want to dictate the terms to the people of New York City and other cities and want to bypass any of the kinds of rules and regulation that other companies know they have to submit to. So for the first time we are going to put the horse before the cart and say okay we are studying the overall situation. It’s going to yield a lot of information. It’s going to yield information on what kind of wages these drivers get, and we know already that the flooding of the market by Uber and the other companies have depressed wages for for-hire vehicle drivers and yellow drivers a like. So we are going to look at that issue to further look into how can we make sure wages are fair for the drivers? We are going to look at congestion issues. We are going to look at environmental issues. We will look across the board to determine what is a fair approach, what’s a fair number, what balances the market. Just like we would with anything else we regulate. We want to make sure there’s lots of different transportation options and for-hire vehicles will clearly be a part of them going forward. But we also want to make sure that there aren’t other social ills created. And that’s what regulation is about. So for the first time that will actually happen in a logical, transparent fashion.

Lehrer: And it’s certainly what City Council and you did this week, certainly we see it in the media all over the world setting a precedent for major cities everywhere. But the cap is only a time out on adding new cars. The 100,000 Ubers are the road today, if those stats are right, can keep going. Might you want to force a reduction of that number under any scenario?

Mayor: First of all, I’m not going to bias the discussion with an assumption but I’ll say – and this is what Speaker Johnson said yesterday and I agree with him. I give him a lot of credit, and the City Council, here. We need to figure out what that number is. We know the number of yellow cabs. We have a medallion system that literally determines how many yellow cabs we have. We’ve had that for years. And the government has determined how that market has evolved. We control all elements of government including with the State with the MTA, we control the amount of mass transit, we control the amount of bikes and ferries and Select Bus Service.

The only piece of the equation that – on this kind of scale has been absolutely without any boundaries or control or public interest, has been these for-hire vehicles. We’re going to rationalize that. So, the answer to your question – the number could be held flat, the number could go up, the number could go down depending on the facts but it will be an evidence-based decision on what that number should be that creates fairness for all New Yorkers.

Lehrer: Larry in Bayside, you’re on WNYC. Hello, Larry, you’re on with the Mayor.

Question: Good morning, gentlemen. Mr. Mayor, there seems to be a great deal of contention about the speed light cameras – speeding cameras at the school intersections enough so that the New York State Senate has basically let the program die or be suspended. If we’re all interested in protecting school children, wouldn’t it make a lot more sense to just put speed bumps around the schools? They cannot be ignored. There are some people that speed and consider paying the camera tickets just like the cost of high insurance and operating a fast car, speeding around streets at 50 and 60 miles an hour. If anyone has ever hit a speed bump at even five or ten miles an hour, faster than the design, you go airborne and have a very unpleasant experience and damage your car.

So, they would be continuous guardians of the children and the streets in front of the schools and they can be controlled by your office and the Department of Transportation, and no cooperation from Albany would be required. There seems to be quite a lot of trouble and friction between New York City and the State.

Mayor: Yeah – although, I want to say I appreciate the suggestion. I’ll speak to it but I first want to just correct that last piece. I want to be abundantly clear to all your listeners, Brian. The New York State Assembly not only passed an extension of speed cameras but an expansion. The Governor has said he would sign that, to his credit. So, there’s three pieces of the equation – Assembly, Senate, Governor.

Two of the three pieces have said not only are speed cameras working, we should have more around schools. The State Senate has said repeatedly that they’re going to discuss this issue, they’re going to deal with this issue. Senator Golden is supposed to be one of the people on the Republican side who agrees with the Democrats that this should be done but we have not seen action yet.

The school year is starting in four weeks or less even now. And we really need the Senate to come back and finish the job and give us the speed cameras around the schools. But to the point raised here, I think it’s a good one because – not only yes, of course, we should add any measure that will help but the problem here is speed bumps don’t work everywhere. I think there’s a bit of an assumption – I hear it, again, at town halls around the city – a lot of people want speed bumps more extensively in their neighborhoods. There are some streets that it really works for. There are other streets it doesn’t. For example, any street that has a bus route or a truck route, it does not work. Certain other streets just because of the physical layout and all.

So, speed bumps can be part of the solution. We’re going to use everything we got but I would also caution the traditional means – you’re right, in the moment the when you hit a speed bump, you’re going to slow down. After that speed bump, you know, just like you think people would stop at stop signs and stop at stop lights but they don’t in a lot of case.

The speed cameras provide a much higher level of discipline and we’re talking around schools where the danger to kids is so high. So, I think you’re right to say – can speed bumps be a piece of the solution? Yes they can, and it is something we can do on our own in some places. But the speed cameras achieve things that we cannot achieve without technology in a lot of places particularly on bigger streets.

Lehrer: The Uber cap was one contentious bill that the City Council passed on Wednesday. The other was Inwood rezoning. I want to ask you one question about that without going through all of the pieces again and the objections of those in the neighborhood who object. But one piece I believe is ten years of limited rent increases for retail stores at the ground level of new apartment buildings. That’s being hailed as a first of its kind. And if I have that number right, ten years, isn’t that a pretty short time? I ask because we’ve seen so much loss of affordable housing with these temporary programs like Mitchell Llama, 20 years and then all these tenants get forced into market rents. Why not see ten years as a short term token?

Mayor: Okay, first, on the example. I want to emphasize. Even with the Mitchell Llamas – and you’re right there is a huge problem with a lot of them going private. It used to be a huge problem with a lot of them going private because it was a time limited approach. What we’re doing now is catching a lot of those Mitchell Llamas before they go private and re-subsidizing them to keep them affordable for the long haul.

So, it really is up to City government and in some cases State government to be very aggressive on anything time limited to stop it from leaving affordability and restructure and keep going with more affordability. We’ve proven that could work on a big scale.

On the question here – I don’t know on the specifics, the concept, if it just ten years in terms of those small businesses that will get an affordable rent. I think what’s great about what was achieved – and I give Councilman Ydanis Rodriguez a lot of credit here – is it was not just let’s build a lot of new affordable housing and that’s going to be 1,600 apartments. It will serve over 4,000 people in this community. Let’s preserve – we’re going to preserve several thousand units that keeps the people in those homes right there, subsidized, with an affordable rent for decades to come. All that and a bunch of other investments – schools, parks, etcetera.

This was a really interesting new element to say we’re going to create affordable small business space in the new developments so that businesses in the community are guaranteed in addition to what – those that stay where they are. If for some reason they need a space or they need to move, they have a space that is at an affordable level.

It’s the first time that I know of it being done particularly in this fashion. If this works, this is something we might be able to do a lot more of in other rezonings. And you know what – again, I don’t know exactly if all them are supposed to be a decade but let’s just take that example of a decade. A decade is a long time in the life of a business in a changing community. If we need to find ways to extend upon it going forward, it gives government the opportunity to do so.

But right now it says to a lot of neighborhood small businesses, here’s a place for you that will work.

Lehrer: You know the things we’ve talked about today – some of the hard choices you’ve had to make as Mayor like on fare evasion versus responsible citizenship, mass arrests in the Bronx that you see in the public interest, Inwood and its discontents – you’re going around the country as a symbol of progressive values. And I’m curious, it’s a serious question, how much has four-and-a-half years at this job been a lesson in the tensions and the compromises with your values that the real world demands?

Mayor: It’s a great question. I’ll give you the topline answer. It’s probably worth its own show. But the – my view is, one, I am literally more optimistic that big, progressive change can happen particularly at the local level. I’m more optimistic than I was five years ago because I’ve seen how much can happen so quickly and I’ve seen what powerful tools we have in this city and that people want these big, bold changes and they embrace them.

So, I’m optimistic. On the balance piece – look, it does take hard work but I think part of it, and this is why I refer to those 55 town hall meetings, I think [inaudible] with people. You say, here’s what we got to balance and here’s the way we do it.

You know, take the fare evasion issue. It’s an obvious one because when I say to people, we got to be fair to all people who do pay everyday who ride the subway, I get a whole lot of nodding heads and a whole lot of applause that they want that balance.

Same on marijuana. There’s a lot of people that do not like marijuana being smoked on their stoop or in their building lobby or on their block. They have rights too. How do we strike that balance? And I think what we’ve done here is really good – to say, we’re going to enforce, it’s against the law, we’re going to enforce but we’re not going to fall into the trap of furthering mass incarceration.

We’re going to try and do it in a way that improves the relationship between police and community rather than undermines it. And you know what I’ve seen is that that actually can get you a long way. It’s not perfect but it can get you a long way.

The whole concept of neighborhood policing is, I think – it really captures the positive resolution of that tension. You must have enforcement of the law, you have to create a safe environment for everyone but you can do it in a way where there’s a lot more dialogue, where there’s a lot fewer arrests, where there’s creative ways to enforce that are less punitive and don’t create so many unintended negative consequences. And then if people start more of a dialogue with police, that actually improves the overall social fabric of the city.

So, the big answer is, yes that balance can be struck and I’ve seen it in real life here in New York City.

Lehrer: Last thing before you go – I’ve been asking you in recent weeks and I guess I’ll keep asking you until you take a position –

Mayor: Don’t break –

[Laughter]

Lehrer: Which is Nixon versus Cuomo in the Democratic gubernatorial primary. Assuming you’re not ready to announce at this moment, let me ask you about one particular issue –

Mayor: Sure.

Lehrer: That Cynthia Nixon has raised which is endorsing – she endorsed allowing public employees to strike which under current law, the Taylor, they cannot. Do you support that?

Mayor: I don’t. I always say I have a lot of respect for Cynthia Nixon and I think her voice has been very positive and very powerful as part of the debate over the future of New York. So, I give her a lot of credit for the issues she’s raised and the impact she’s having but on this one I just disagree with her. I think we have very fair laws right now. She did say – I want to be fair to her – she did say she would exempt first responders from it but I think the current approach is the right one that says public employees can’t strike but they do have many, many ways to make their views known and there’s obviously collective bargaining and I think it strikes the right balance.

I think we have a pretty fair and consistent approach to labor relations in this city right now and to respecting the rights of working people. I do not think that needs to change.

Lehrer: So, when are going to make an endorsement?

Mayor: Again, the election is still a little ways off. Most people are only going to focus at the very end. I’m going to make all my decisions in the coming days. I’ll announce them case by case. This is going to be true on our work related to New York State but also around the country. As I endorse someone, I’ll announce it and announce that I’ll be doing something to help them.

I, this week, announced that I am supporting Zellnor Myrie for the State Senate seat in Brooklyn against Jesse Hamilton. Jesse Hamilton – obviously a Democratic Senator who went to the IDC and I think that was a huge mistake. I think Zellnor Myrie is someone who is very, very promising as an up and coming leader in Brooklyn and I hope he becomes the next State Senator. I’ll speaking to those specific races and others, you know, literally day by day as we go forward.

Lehrer: Mr. Mayor, thanks as always, talk to you next week.

Mayor: Thank you, Brian.