You knew it was coming, but many New Yorkers were still left disappointed.
On July 23, Mayor Michael Bloomberg vetoed the Community Safety Act (aka the “anti-racial profiling, anti-stop-and-frisk” and “inspector general” bills). Politicians and activists alike had something to say about the veto and what it meant to citizens in the five boroughs.
“We remain disappointed that Mayor Bloomberg refuses to engage in a constructive dialogue about ending the government-sponsored discriminatory profiling happening in our city,” said Priscilla Gonzalez, spokesperson for Communities United for Police Reform, in an emailed statement to the AmNews. “People across this nation are engaged in deep discussions about the dangers of racial profiling, but Mayor Bloomberg is instead focused on waging a fight against ending it in New York City.”
The Community Safety Act’s comprised to two bills: Intro 1079, which would establish an inspector general within the Department of Investigation, and Intro 1080, which would create the first racial profiling ban in New York City. Both bills passed by a 40-11 and 34-17 vote, respectively.
New York City Council Members Jumaane Williams (co-vice chair of the Council’s Black, Latino and Asian Caucus) and Brad Lander (co-chair of the Council’s Progressive Caucus) released a joint statement about Bloomberg’s veto of the bill they championed.
“When the City Council passed each of these bills with veto-proof majorities last month, we heard from Council members who experienced discriminatory policing firsthand—Council members like Danny Dromm, who was arrested as a teenager on false charges simply because he was gay, and Donovan Richards, who was first stopped-and-frisked as a 13-year-old boy. We have seen the impacts of discriminatory policing in our communities and are ready to end it,” read Williams and Lander’s statement.
“In the midst of an important national conversation on profiling and discrimination, Mayor Bloomberg has not only turned a blind eye to the plight of his own city, he has done so while refusing to hear any testimony from affected communities,” continued the joint statement. “His actions have embarrassed this city and this country. We will not be deterred by false accusations or fear-mongering, nor the millions of dollars this administration has used to fund their campaign of lies.”
President Barack Obama ties into this situation in more ways than one. In 2003, as a state senator in Illinois, Obama voted in favor of the Illinois Civil Rights Act of 2003 (one of the models for Intro 1080 in New York City). That law provided a private right of action in state courts for people who experienced discrimination from government agencies—which included the police department—and allowed them to bring “disparate impact” lawsuits. The law allows the judge to award legal fees and monetary damages.
Public Advocate and mayoral candidate Bill de Blasio spoke of his disappointment with Bloomberg’s veto.
“Today, Mayor Bloomberg continued to turn a blind eye to the racial profiling that takes place in our neighborhoods each and every day,” de Blasio said in a statement. “When it comes to a ban on racial profiling, Christine Quinn, Bill Thompson and Anthony Weiner stand with Mayor Bloomberg. I believe we need a real change and encourage City Council members to stand by their votes and override the mayor’s veto. Our young men cannot afford for us to waver in the face of intimidation from City Hall.”
Last week, the AmNews reported that Bloomberg and the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association have targeted Council Members Mark Weprin, Jessica Lappin and Daniel Garodnick to have either made calls for other to run against them in the election this year or sent “anti” literature to the residents of that council member’s district.
The methods used to try to get the bills overturned weren’t lost on those in the Council.
Last Friday, the six prime co-sponsors of the Community Safety Act—Council Members Williams, Lander, Fernando Cabrera, Robert Jackson, Melissa Mark-Viverito and Rosie Mendez—sent a letter to Bloomberg asking him to listen to testimony from New Yorkers affected by racial profiling before he decides whether to sign or veto the bills. They also noted how Bloomberg and the PBA are playing into fears of New Yorkers from certain neighborhoods.
“Too often in debates like these, policymakers from some of the city’s wealthier and safer neighborhoods decide what is best for low-income communities and communities of color without actually listening to the members of those communities,” read the statement. “When we listen to members of the public in open discourse on contentious issues like these, our city and our democracy are better served.”
On Wednesday, the architects of the Community Safety Act and activists took to City Hall to denounce the veto and continue the fight against racial profiling. But Gonzalez believes it all really comes down to a simple question that Bloomberg needs to answer for himself.
“Either you believe people should be treated differently simply because of their race, religion, sexual orientation or immigration status or you find that repulsive and believe it should be outlawed,” Gonzalez stated. “New York City must outlaw racial profiling and all discriminatory profiling, and we support the City Council taking leadership on this issue to move our city forward by overriding the mayor’s misguided veto to ensure all New Yorkers’ civil rights are protected.”