Transcript: Mayor de Blasio Appears Live on WNYC

February 3, 2017

Brian Lehrer: It’s the Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Good morning, everyone. We begin today as we do on most Fridays with our weekly Ask the Mayor segment with Mayor Bill de Blasio. And as we rotate – whether we do specific calls on a specific topic, or from a specific borough, or general calls, last week we did Staten Island – it can be calls to the Mayor about anything from anywhere. Today, 2-1-2-4-3-3-W-N-Y-C, 2-1-2-4-3-3-9-6-9-2. You can also always tweet a question. Just use the hashtag – #AsktheMayor. We’ve got some Twitter questions that have come in in the last day that we’ll be asking. And you can tweet some more. Use the hashtag – #AsktheMayor.

Mr. Mayor, welcome back to WNYC.

Mayor Bill de Blasio: Hey. Thank you very much, Brian.

Lehrer: And let me ask you first today about the police union contract that you settled this week that has some interesting elements. One, is that they’re getting an increase based on community policing duties, over whatever other increase they might have gotten. Is that to say community policing is harder work than the radio call, or stop-and-frisk, or other kinds of policing?

Mayor: There’s no question in my mind, Brian, that this is going to require more of our officers because it’s a paradigm shift between neighborhood policing, which has our officers talking to community residents a lot more, working with them creatively to solve problems and stop crime before it happens – on the one hand. And then, one of the other key pieces of the package – clear agreement that we were moving forward aggressively on body cameras for all our officers. By the end of 2019, every officer on patrol, which is over 13,000 officers, will have body cameras on. And that cleared litigation and other roadblocks that we wanted to resolve.

So, when you look at it in total, making clear that we were all moving forward together with a much more neighborhood-focused approach to policing, communications focused, communications with neighborhood residents – that different approach, plus the use of body cameras by all our patrol officers – those were just some of the things that were in this package of agreements that made it, I think, very much worthwhile to the people of New York City, but also to the taxpayers.

Lehrer: And that’s harder for them? Harder work than other kinds of policing?

Mayor: I don’t think it’s about harder or easier. I think it’s very different. And I think it takes a different philosophy, a different approach. It’s why Commissioner Bratton started and Commissioner O’Neill is continuing the re-training of the entire police force – for example, in de-escalation tactics to defuse confrontations or encounters with community residents. That’s why we’re going to be instituting implicit bias training for all of our officers.

This is all part of a sea change. It really is a sea change. These are not things that conceivably good have happened under the previous administration and the previous police commissioner. These are things that a lot of New Yorkers have been calling for, for not only years, but decades. We’re now getting an agreement. We’re all moving forward together. And yes, it will take it a lot of different approaches. In some ways, it is a bigger challenge because it takes a lot more work to really develop relationships and develop trust than it does to just deal with each incident as it happens.

And the body cameras – look, the body cameras are a major, major adjustment. I think they will be for the good of all, including our officers. But it’s a major adjustment in practice. It will take a lot of training and preparation on how to use them properly and know the situations for using them. But I think overall, a lot got done and a lot got resolved in this package.

Lehrer: If I’m reading it right, this puts the police officers pay raises on a little faster pace than other City workers, including the police sergeants in the pattern you had previously set for City workers. If other unions complain about that, what’s your response?

Mayor: Oh, that’s very straightforward. We said that the day we announced it. First of all, it conforms to our labor pattern. We wouldn’t have done it otherwise. I was explicit about that. It is consistent with the other contracts. This now puts us at 99.1 percent of our employees under contract if ratified. That is compared to zero percent three years ago.

But the answer to your question is – in addition to working through a number of issues around body cameras and resolving that – neighborhood policing, resolving that – we resolved outstanding litigation and grievances on issues like the use of naloxone like involvement in our health care savings plan, which is something that’s going to save the taxpayers a lot of money. That’s going to help us get greater savings.

But very clearly, one of the biggest decisions by the PBA was to offer the notion that starting officers would stay at their current starting salary. There would not be an increase in the starting salary, which is different than what all the other unions decided on and agreed to where there was an increase in the starting salary. That savings there is part of what funds the other elements of the plan.

Lehrer: Also interesting to me is that even as you decrease the starting salary, for those – 

Mayor: Not decrease. Not decrease. That’s inaccurate, Brian. I’m going to be very clear.

Lehrer: Sorry, go ahead.

Mayor: You freeze the starting salary at its current level. Pretty much every other contract said, when we agree to a contract, all salary levels, including starting salary, will increase according to the percentages in the contract. Well, what the PBA put forward – and we thought was fair – was that starting salaries would remain exactly as they are now, unlike those other union contracts. Therefore, you’re starting with a base that is frozen as it is now. There would be increases each year per the contract, but on a slightly lower base –

Lehrer: Okay.

Mayor: – than they would have been if you said, “Nope, everyone who starts gets an increase from jump.” And that adds up to a lot of money.

Lehrer: And it takes a huge jump after five years – if I’m reading it correctly – from $51,000 to $85,000 the next year. Is that too –

Mayor: I don’t think – I don’t think that is accurate. I think what is accurate is that it ends up in a situation where our officers after 5.5 years, when you add all types of direct compensation – I’m not talking about fringe benefits of any kind, but direct compensation – they end up in a very strong position after five years. And we that’s – at five-and-a-half-years – we think that’s fair. We think that’s good for attracting great officers and retaining them.

But again, I want to emphasize. By freezing the starting salary, there were substantial savings to the City and the taxpayers. We were able to use that to address other issues. Also, on disability, which has been a big issue – an agreement that that starting salary freeze helped fund – a new disability level for any of our officers who are hurt in the line of duty. And the officers will make a direct contribution towards disability as well – as do other members of uniformed service.

Lehrer: On getting a big jump at the five-year point or so, I looked up the teachers’ pay schedule. And this is not at all to say that the police officers don’t deserve every penny that they’re getting. Even with a master’s degree, plus 30 credits, it takes much longer than that to get to $85,000, and it goes much more gradually. And I think there’s a giant retention problem for teachers in the city. I don’t know what it’s like for cops. Why the difference?

Mayor: A couple of different things. I will get the exact figures. And I want to be very careful – I’m saying this to all your listeners – when we’re compare specific contracts, we’re not going to do that on the fly and we’re not going to do that based on what you or I read in the newspapers, we’re going to do that based on the actual facts. So, I’m happy to come forward in the next show if you want to do it, and we’ll compare very specific information. We’ll also put it up online, so people can see it.

But I would say this – we think it is crucial to reward our officers for the good work they do under fair contracts that conform to the labor pattern we created for all other unions. We think it’s important to attract and retain the best police officers. As for teachers, we have done a lot, and would say – to be fair to Michael Bloomberg, he did a lot to increase teachers’ salaries – we obviously came to a contract with the teachers that they felt was very fair and resolved a lot of outstanding economic issues from the past. But even more important I would argue is we have changed the entire approach towards our teachers. There is a much more respectful approach from City Hall and DOE towards teachers. There’s much more opportunity for advancement to master teacher, for example, which gives additional pay for being an exemplary teacher who can then train others. There’s much more advancement opportunity within the school system to become an administrator. There’s much more professional development, which teachers want.

It’s baked into the contract at a much higher level than ever before. These all are crucial elements at retaining great teachers. And I think we’re in a good place, but we’re going to constantly pay attention to the retention issue on teachers because it’s one of the things that will determine the future of the schools.

Lehrer: One other police-related thing, and then we’ll get to some calls. Yesterday, as you know, is the fifth anniversary of the police killing of then-18-year-old Ramarley Graham. His mother had a New York Times op-ed, as you know – very critical of you and of the process through which an indictment of the officer was thrown out on a technicality she said. And there’s only recently been a disciplinary hearing that the Police Commissioner has sole authority to decide the outcome of, and that you met with her as someone interested in becoming Mayor, but won’t meet with her as Mayor. Has there been too little justice for Ramarley Graham? And will you meet with his mother?

Mayor: It’s – you know, Brian, there is such emotion understandably. She’s in immense pain and I can only imagine the loss that she feels. And what happened shouldn’t have happened. It’s as simple as that.

It happened before I became Mayor but it shouldn’t have happened. But to be clear about a couple different things. Once I became Mayor I appointed the person who would make the decision in the case. And I felt that it was important to set a standard. I was not going to meet with one side of a case without meeting with the other side and I didn’t think it was appropriate in that context to meet with either side.

There is a due process system – I would remind a lot of people who are progressive that due process cuts both ways. We cannot believe in it for some people and not believe in it for others. So, there’s a due process system.

I have nothing to do with the judicial system. The judicial system up in the Bronx, twice, looked at this case and did not follow through with an indictment. The Police Department has had a trial. It was a public trial. And there was a lot of communication with the Graham family about that.

A decision will come soon. That’s going to be made by the Police Commissioner and that will address – as we can through a non-judicial approach, through only a departmental approach – that will address all that we can address.

But the more – you know, I’m not going to take away for a moment from her pain which is real but I think that the arguments being made jumbled together a lot of things that should not be combined. The bigger issue is how do we stop these tragedies going forward. And I’m telling you the path we’re on now – which is profoundly different than just three years ago – where all of our officers are being trained in de-escalation techniques; all of officers are being trained – going to be trained in implicit bias where there is a big emphasis on neighborhood policing and developing relationships and communication which did not exist at all; where we’ve reduce stop-and-frisk by 93 percent; and where every patrol officer will have body cameras in three years. This is a sea change. It’s the kind of thing that will stop these tragedies from happening going forward.

Lehrer: And on going forward, she – Ramarley Graham’s mother wrote her opinion about that in her op-ed. She said there’s been little real progress nationally on police reform because the focus on body cameras and community policing won’t do much unless more cops who kill unjustifiably are also held accountable for their actions. Do you agree with her?

Mayor: No, I think that’s wrong. I think these tragedies are horrendous but they are very, very rare. We have 36,000 officers now in a city of 8.5 million people. They use their weapons very, very infrequently. It’s a stunningly low number. I believe it was 80 weapon discharges in 2016 of which only, I think, 37 were involved in any kind of confrontation. In a city of 8.5 million over 365 days and the vast, vast majority of the situations were when a criminal aimed a gun at a police officer first.

So, I think these are tragedies are very rare and we want to make non-existent. I think that is about fundamental reform in everything we do in the police force – how we recruit, how train, the use of body cameras, everything – is going to change the approach. And that’s the message up and down the line in the police force.

I think some people think only the punitive is what change people. I just disagree. I think it’s important that there be consequences and I think we’ve seen more and more in this country real consequences for our officers who have done the wrong things and they are a very, very small minority.

But that’s not where you really change behavior. You change behavior through training. You change behavior through accountability measures like body cameras.

Lehrer: It’s our weekly Ask the Mayor segment here on WNYC with Mayor Bill de Blasio – 2-1-2-4-3-3-W-N-Y-C, 2-1-2-4-3-3-9-6-9-2. David in Park Slope, you’re on WNYC with the Mayor. Hello, David.

Question: Good morning. I’m calling because back in December when we had that stretch of really cold weather I was walking down Atlantic Avenue near Court Street and I passed a young man who I suddenly noticed that he seemed to be staggering and falling asleep on his feet. He looked like he had been through some rough times – like, he already had some bruises on his head. So, I stopped and I asked him if he was okay and I engaged him in conversation. You know, he was really out of it but nice – you know, willing to be led into the YMCA where I was heading to to see if maybe we can sit him down there and you know figure out if we can do something to help him –

Lehrer: And what’s your question?

Question: So, my question is – as soon I got in there Y-staff – someone said something about calling 9-1-1 or calling the police. He got up and you know tried to run out of the building. I ran after him. I said, “Whoa, whoa, whoa what’s wrong?” He said, “They’re going to call the cops on me. They’re going to call the cops on me.” So my question is this – doing all these police reforms, that’s well and good but the fact remains that for a lot of disadvantaged people particularly people with mental health issues, the police in their minds are going to continue to be a source of anxiety regardless of any changes that the Mayor’s making at the department.

Would it be possible to have something other than the police instituted so that these people – so we could call for help –

Lehrer: There is –

Question: – without having someone with a gun arrive on the scene?

Lehrer: Thank you very much. Mr. Mayor.

Mayor: David, I appreciate the question and I appreciate that you went to help this guy in distress. I think there are a couple of different points here. First of all, if someone – the cause of their distress is either a mental health problem or a substance misuse problem, we are trying to make help much more available. And the initiative that my wife has spearheaded – ThriveNYC and specifically the new hotline which is 1-8-8-8-N-Y-C-W-E-L-L – and I encourage everyone to keep that because anybody can use that for themselves or even someone they know. 1-8-8-N-Y-C-W-E-L-L – that is where there is trained counselors who can deal with any type of mental health or substance misuse issue at the point of contact and can then help the individual get to treatment or support and make sure it actually sticks, and that they get the appointments they need and they stick to them.

That’s a whole new approach to these issues and it’s going to create a lot more continuity and support. So, that is one option if someone needs immediate help. We’re also encouraging all New Yorkers who can to get mental health first aid training which we expect to provide to at least a quarter-million people under Chirlane’s plan.

Just like people get CPR it helps people understand how to deal with these kind of situations and actual, everyday New Yorkers can do a lot immediately to help someone who is in distress.

But if you’re talking about a right-now problem where someone is in immediate distress. For example, you said the person had bruises. There’s obviously some physical issue. That’s either calling EMS or calling the police, and that’s the right thing to do.

And no one should fear that. The police are going to come and try and help and there should be no cause for a problem. If someone, sadly, separately has committed some kind of crime and that’s why they fear the police, that’s separate matter.

But for most people, if they fear the way that the police are going to encounter them, well, a lot more of our police are getting training. Over 5,000 have gotten training in how to deal with mental health issues. That’s going to be more pervasive in the force.

So, I – and by the way if someone is homeless per say on the street, then you can call 3-1-1 and report it and our HOME-STAT teams – and those are trained workers who are civilians – will come out and address that situation.

So, I think the answer, David, is there’s more option than we used to have by far. And I also think our police are being trained to handle these situations in a careful manner.

Lehrer: Suresh in Manhattan, you’re on WNYC. Hello, Suresh.

Question: Good morning, Brian. Good morning, Mayor.

Lehrer: And Suresh – turn your radio off, okay? We’re hearing it as loudly as we’re you. Go ahead.

Question: Alright. I’m a yellow cab driver. In 2014, we bought the medallion from New York City TLC ranging from [inaudible] dollar [inaudible] financed by bank or credit union. But now, we [inaudible] Lyft and Uber [inaudible] pay the mortgage. The number of these vehicles [inaudible]. Mayor also said in the past that we don’t talk with the Uber – Uber is a private company [inaudible] –

Mayor: Suresh, what would you like to see the City do?

Question: The City has to [inaudible] either TLC take this [inaudible] back [inaudible] the bank so we have no obligation [inaudible] –

Lehrer: I understand. Let me just say for listeners who don’t understand the question. Since, Uber – in particular Uber and maybe also Lyft came in, it’s changed the taxi market so much that some of the drivers like our caller who paid so much money for a medallion just a few years ago has seen the value of that drop because you can’t make as much money as before as a yellow cab driver. And I guess he’s asking for the City to compensate the difference because he sees it as a regulatory decision that the City has made to allow Uber in like this.

Mayor: Well, Suresh, I understand for sure the challenge you’re going through. I come to some different conclusions in the first stances. First of all, I want to say this issue we’re going to working and the TLC’s going to be working on to try and find every way to strike a balance in regulation that will be fair to all elements of the for-hire vehicle sector. Now, the yellow cabs are an essential part of New York City and have been for a long time. I think some mistakes were made over the years in Albany legislation, in City decisions before this administration that exacerbated the problem before we got here.

I also think there are free market dynamics that have created an opening for Lyft and Uber and others, and that the taxi industry has to learn from that. The yellow cab industry has to learn from that in every way possible – use the same approaches. And I think you’ve seen more of that lately.

But look, I think, I would be very careful about assuming that something that was a free market dynamic where the City offered medallions for years and years until not long ago they were rising in value all the time. They still have a lot of intrinsic value because yellow cabs are still a crucial part of how people get around in a growing city – a city with more and more tourists, more and more jobs, more and more residents.

And I think you’re going to see some leveling off over time and that that could strengthen the medallion values again.

But I’m not ready to commit to reversing course. I think it’s too early to say where this is going for the long haul. The more the yellow cab industry is competitive and updates itself the better off it will be.

And what we’re seeing is even now with so much availability of the other types of services there’s still a majority market for a yellow cab. It still provides something the others don’t.

So, you know, we’ll certainly be looking at the kinds of adjustments we have to make but I think – I think you could see a different reality in the future where the yellow cab industry is strengthened over time.

Lehrer: Here’s a question via Twitter. A listener’s asks, “Does he have a backup plan to ensure New Yorkers if the ACA” – the Affordable Care Act – “is done away with. Will he advocate for State single-payer?” And I think this is in response to Assemblyman Richard Gottfried being on the show yesterday. You may know he’s got a bill in Albany for a State full, you know, government, single-payer, do-away-with the private insurance companies in New York State. There would be a progressive tax to fund it. The listener is asking if you’re in favor.

Mayor: So, two – there’s two parts of that question. The first part is what are we going to do? And I think what we see on the Affordable Care Act and I really am asking your listeners to listen deeply on this one.

You know it was very easy for Donald Trump and a bunch of Republican congress members to say ‘Oh, we’re just going to repeal it’. Now the hard truth is becoming clear to them. Over 20 million people who have benefitted who do not want their insurance taken away, and you’ve seen a shockingly quick slowing down and re-estimation by Republicans in the House and Senate, so what does that mean? It means the ACA is the law of the land.

It doesn’t matter if they took a symbolic vote. It’s still the law of the land, and what New York City is resolved to do is to sign up 50,000 more people in 2017 for health insurance under ACA, and we’re encouraging all other jurisdictions to do the same to make it even stronger to make the membership even greater, so it’s harder to get rid of. And we should all fight – and I’m working with other mayors around the country, Democrat and Republican alike – we should all fight ACA repeal, and if there ever is a vote to repeal fight for a lot of things in any new policies that would protect the 20 million and obviously a lot of the things like protecting the folks with preexisting conditions and keeping young people on policies up until the age of 26 of their families.

So that’s the big picture on that. This ball game has just begun, and, you know, I’ve heard talk from Washington that nothing that’s going on in ACA could affect the ground for years, which means we be [inaudible] every single listener can help make sure if there’s anyone in your life who is not signed up for health insurance under ACA, call 311. That’s all it takes. We have enrollment specialists. You get on the phone with them. If you or any of your listeners doesn’t have health insurance, do it for yourself because they’re very affordable and protect you and your family; do it for your country because everyone who signs up for ACA makes it harder to get rid of. On the Godfried bill, I have not seen it, Brian.

I believe in single-payer for the nation. I have not seen the specific suggestion for New York State. Obviously I believe there’s no problem with asking for the wealthy to pay more in taxes to begin with. That’s why I put a mansion tax proposal in Albany, and I think the wealthy tragically might get a very big tax cut from Washington. I think we should all fight it, but they might get a very big tax cut. I think it’s sadly likely. So to talk about new taxes on the wealthy to rebalance that I think is fair. But in terms of the Assemblyman’s bill I need to look at it before I give you a formal comment.

Lehrer: Let me ask you an Albany politics follow up questions especially since you mentioned to mansion tax, which seems like it’s a nonstarter in the State Senate. They also seem to be blocking – when you testified to your annual Mayor’s testimony before the state legislator this week – blocking the 5 cent plastic bag tax. Is the fact more Senate Democrats are joining the so called Independent Democrats Conference and the collation with the Republicans making it harder for the City to get what they need or is it irrelevant?

Mayor: I think it remains to be seen at this point. I think on the first point just on the substance, you know, the state mansion tax is a nonstarter – well I also remember people saying pre-K was a nonstarter. I remember people saying $15 minimum wage was a nonstarter and paid family leave was a nonstarter, so the world is turning very quickly. The public is going to demand higher taxes on the wealthy especially if they see a federal effort to cut taxes on the wealthy and corporations. They’re going to demand in a progressive state like New York higher taxes on the wealthy to compensate, and because we’re going to need a lot more help especially with potential federal cuts to all – to housing, to education, and to so many other fronts.

So I think the demand in New York State for higher taxes on the wealthy at minimum to compensate for a lot of the tax cuts that could emanate from Washington, I think that’s going to get stronger and stronger. The mansion tax proposal by the way is for homes that are over $2 million in value when they’re sold, adding to the taxes on those sales produces $330 million a year. That will allow us to give 25,000 senior citizens in New York City affordable housing who aren’t getting it now, and that’s on top of our existing affordable housing plan. I think that’s going to be very popular. I think there’s going to be a lot of pressure on the Senate Republicans on that.

On the bigger front, on the bag tax, I think look – it’s ridiculous to keep putting plastic bags into our landfills. It costs taxpayers a lot of money. It’s horrible for the environment. They’re made with fossil fuels. That’s bad for climate change. This is something that needs to be addressed. We have a fair way of addressing it that will get people to change their personal behavior and just use reusable bags like our relatives a few generations back used all the time. So we’re going to fight that. I think there’s a lot of different ways to ultimately achieve either fee or a ban on plastic bag use. But to the IDC question and Democrat caucus, it remains to be seen how it plays out.

What I think is immutable is, we need a Democratic – functioning-Democratic majority in the State Senate if we want to improve rent regulation, if we want higher taxes on the wealthy, if we want to protect a woman’s right to choose, we need a Democratic majority. I think it’s only a matter of time. I think we got a thrown a curveball in the State because of the dynamics of the 2016 election, but this is just a matter of time, and then we’ll see what that whole IDC situation means in that context.

Lehrer: John in Queens, you’re on WNYC with the Mayor. Hello, John.

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

Mayor: Good morning, John.

Question: All right, I’ll get straight to the point Mr. Mayor. My question is in regards to building development, over-development, and court code enforcement – law enforcement from various different City agencies. Like I said, my name is Jon [inaudible] and I represent the Cambria Heights Civic Association. We’re having a terrible time getting code and law enforcement. How can we get law enforcement from Department of Buildings, Department of Finance? We have organization Ohel Chabad-Lubavitch and the Karen [inaudible] Organization operating buildings way outside the limits of the law. I’m talking about operating without certificates of occupancy, all types of building construction. I’m talking about a quarter-million dollars’ worth of fines that will not get enforced.

We’ve been trying our best. We’ve been working with our local elected officials – Councilman Daneek Miller, State Senator Leroy Comrie. All of us – even the Borough President, Madame Katz – they’ve been working with us. They support us. They want to build a five-story building. They’re not paying these fines on these buildings. We’ve approached the Commissioner of Queens, Derek Lee, on trying to get this – everyone we’ve [inaudible].

Lehrer: And briefly, John – what would you like the City to do?

Question: Well how can we, Mr. Mayor – how can we get enforcement of the laws down here in Southeast Queens in the Cambria Heights community? What is the problem with these City agencies? Why can’t the enforce the laws, collect these fines, so that we can get – we have a poor quality of life out here, Mr. Mayor.

Mayor: Okay, John. I’m hearing you. Look, I want to be careful on that last statement. I think in Cambria Heights and neighborhoods all over the city, a lot of good people like you are doing a lot to improve the quality of life. And I think a city that has gotten safer every year in the last three years, a city with more jobs, a city with better schools – that’s all part of quality of life too. So I’m going to contest that one point.

But I will say, I’m hearing you loud and clear. I don’t the specific buildings. I don’t the specific organizations. But I can say this, we have added a very substantial amount of additional Buildings inspectors. What we found was the problem was the Buildings Department was fundamentally understaffed and it couldn’t reach all the places, even where there were overt violations.

If you’ll give you information to the folks from WNYC, we will have the both the Finance Department and the Buildings Department follow up with you personally at a high level. Look, if someone is breaking the law, we want to go after them. And we want the situation resolved. And there will be consequences. The problem is simply getting to each situation and resolving it, but now we have a lot more firepower to do that with.

Lehrer: John, hang on; we’re going to take your contact information off the air. And the Mayor has promised that his office will follow up with you individually. Let us know if you get satisfaction.

We’re just about out of time. Let me just touch very briefly on the political fundraising investigations. You’ve said you’d be meeting with U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara. Did that meeting happen? Of if not, is it scheduled?

Mayor: It’s coming up in the next few weeks. And again, we’ve said from the very beginning of all this. First – first days of this whole dynamic – I made clear I will fully cooperate. My lawyers have made that clear. And we look forward to the dialogue.

Lehrer: It’s not next week, it’s in the next few weeks?

Mayor: Yeah, I’m just saying broadly – it’s coming up in the next few weeks.

Lehrer: All right. Thank you as always. Talk to you next week.

Mayor: Thank you, Brian.

Lehrer: Brian Lehrer on WNYC. Our Ask the Mayor segment every Friday morning at ten o’clock. You can submit questions any time through the week. Use the hashtag – #AsktheMayor.