Transcript: Mayor de Blasio Holds Media Availability

June 29, 2017

Mayor Bill de Blasio: Good afternoon, everyone. Well, we have very good news for the children of New York City and for the parents of New York City. Mayoral control of education has been extended for the next two years. This is a hugely important moment. We have 1.1 million school children in this city and millions of family members who care deeply about these children.

No one knew until just a couple hours ago where this was going. The good news is Albany has done the right thing. It took a lot of work, a lot of dialogue, a lot of negotiation but Albany has done the right thing by our children.

Let's be clear, we got to a point where we were standing on the brink – only about 36 hours before the deadline and mayoral control could have lapsed.

But again, all the hard work came to fruition and this crisis was averted. In the end, Albany chose equity and excellence over chaos and corruption. I've used those phrases to describe the old reality of the 32 school boards. Chaos and corruption was literally what we experienced for years and years in this city and it held us back and obviously made it impossible for our schools to improve.

Fifteen years since mayoral control of education has been in place, we've seen almost a 50 percent improvement in our graduation rate. We've seen steep declines in our dropout rate. We've seen great improvements in our test scores. It's clear that mayoral control has been a success. And the action by the legislature and the governor today show that that old history of chaos and corruption has been rejected once again.

Now, we will be focusing and re-doubling our efforts on our Equity and Excellence agenda which I believe fundamentally has help move our school system forward. And for the next two years we will not have the distraction of another vote in Albany. We will have our attention squarely on our children and improving their education every single day.

It's time to offer some thanks because all of the key leaders in Albany contributed to this outcome. As you know I've been talking to the leadership in Albany over the last couple of weeks. The conversations were very productive. Sometimes there were clearly disagreements, there were ups and downs but they were ultimately very productive, respectful conversations that helped us get to a good outcome.

I want to thank Governor Cuomo for his leadership in this process. I want to thank Speaker Heastie and affirm once again that the State Assembly stood by us every step along the way. I want to thank Leader Flanagan. We had a series of good and respectful conversations that I think were important in this process. I want to thank Leader Stewart-Cousins and Leader Klein as well for their important roles. And I have to give real credit to key members of the City Hall team who took up residency in Albany over the last couple of weeks – Emma Wolfe, my Director of Intergovernmental Affairs; Dean Fuleihan, our Budget Director; and Sherif Soliman, our State Legislative Director.

All of them deserve tremendous credit for working with all of the parties to get to a positive resolution.

Look, I think the voices of the people mattered a lot here, the voices of leaders of every sector of New York City. A lot of you were here when we pulled together a group of business leaders – 105 CEOs who signed a letter in support of mayoral control. A lot of you were here days later when we had some of the most important labor leaders and labor organizations in this city standing in common cause in favor of mayoral control. We've had faith leaders, civic leaders speak up. There's a very strong leadership consensus in this city on the need to control mayoral control as a way forward for our schools.

There's a lot more we have to do to fix our schools. I'm quite clear about that but it only will happen with mayoral control of education. And to have this clear path forward for the next two years is extremely helpful in that effort to constantly improve our schools.

So, I want to thank all of those leaders who stepped up and they did it over and over again, and their commitment made a big difference here. Their voices were definitely heard in Albany. I can tell you that for a fact.

Finally, just to say, this is for me personally also a very important moment. I'm a parent. My two children, Chiara and Dante, went through the public schools the whole way through their education. They benefitted from the changes that came from mayoral control. I want for other children what I wanted for my own. I want to see them get the education they deserve. And we're going to work with all elements of the educational system as we have throughout. We'll work with traditional public schools. We'll work with Catholic schools and Jewish schools and Muslim schools as we have on pre-K, as we have on after school.

We'll keep doing that for the good of all. But as I've said many times the key determinant of our future will be our traditional public schools. This gives us the opportunity to continue making the changes we need to reach over 1.1 million kids.

Finally, we've looked at what it takes to change the status quo in the school system and we've undertaken a plan that I think has been systematic. First, addressing early childhood education with pre-K and now 3-K to come. And this obviously is a great day also because it's going to speed the development of our 3-K initiative. This vote in Albany opens the door to us moving forward aggressively on 3-K.

It's the Equity and Excellence agenda including things like the focus on getting kids reading on third grade level in much, much greater numbers. It's the focus on computer science for all. It's the focus on access to college including AP classes in every high school.

That's what this agenda has been about piece by piece. It's been growing steadily. Now it will take off even more. So, I'm really ready to get back to work focusing on the day-to-day work of our schools.

You know, we just completed school this week but in about ten week's time we'll be opening up  again. So, we got a lot of work to do over the summer to get ready for an even stronger school year next year.

Just a few words in Spanish before I take your questions. I'll take questions on the mayoral control of education issue and everything in Albany, and then we'll turn to any and all topics. But first in Spanish –

[Mayor de Blasio speaks in Spanish]

With that, I welcome your questions.

Question: Mr. Mayor, can you just tell us a little bit about what the mood was when you found in City Hall? Did you pop champagne? And particularly given the fact you won't have to do this next year.

Mayor: That is worthy of a party, Mara. You know, you all watched this process. We thought last Wednesday we were really, really close. And there were points in the day yesterday we thought we were really, really close and I think what makes it a little hard to have the classic celebration was because the thing was sort of on again off again several times.

But it was an incredible feeling of relief when we finally got the news and you know the way that a consensus builds is a pretty fascinating things and never quite the same each time.

But as this day progressed it looked more and more hopeful, and I finally got the word that the Senate had begun voting and that was an incredible sense of relief.

Question: What role did Governor Cuomo play in this?

Mayor: He played an important role and I think a very constructive role. We had a number of conversations over the last few weeks and I think given the complexity of all the issues – you saw issues kind of come on and off the table throughout this process. The final outcome was quite a substantial number of issues coming together but that didn't look like it would be the case even 48 hours ago.

So, there was a lot that had to be balanced in the equation. I think the Governor played a very helpful role in terms of continuing to both figure out what each party needed but also push them towards a resolution.

Question: You mentioned the word distraction. Can you talk about what you and your team maybe couldn't do or had less time to focus on in the last few weeks as you basically spent every single day working on this especially in the backdrop of everyone basically agrees [inaudible] –

Mayor: How ironical.

[Laughter]

Look, the last few weeks have been typified by a dual reality – a huge amount of time going into mayoral control of education and a huge amount of time going into to try to stop the US Senate health care bill. These are two things that would have had immensely, you know, the end of mayoral control and the passage of the current Senate health care legislation – both of those would have had a really, really negative impact on millions of New Yorkers.

So, that's been a dual focus – intensive focus literally every single day, many hours per day. When a situation is averted like this and now we know we have mayoral control for two more years, it opens up a lot more time and space to focus on the bigger picture issues up ahead in terms of how we have to keep moving our school system.

There is lots we want to work on to improve the schools. This now gives us both the time and energy to focus more but also the clarity in terms of having the ability to make longer term plans. So, that's incredibly helpful.

You know there's going to be times in government where there's a challenge that's going to take time away from the central agenda. This was a long process as you saw. So, it took a lot of time but it's very liberating to have it behind us so now we can get to the core agenda.

Question: Mr. Mayor, can you explain [inaudible] your understanding as to how the charter school trade-off got dropped from this, that the Senate was seeking? And secondly, it seems like that was replaced by this pension increase measure. Can you talk about that and the impact that might have on the city?

Mayor: Sure, look, Speaker Heastie said from the beginning and I thought it was a very fair concept that mayoral control should be seen in its own light and that it should be just as automatic as – in other words, extending mayoral control should be just as automatic as extending the taxing authority for upstate counties or for the City of New York.

I think it was a very fair construct. I think it was a very helpful one too and I think it had a big impact on the outcome. So, eventually I think that logic pervaded in many ways. And, yeah, it was perfectly fair to say, "Let's look at other things that could be important the different parties and that would be fair to include in an omnibus bill."

Ultimately, the pension item, I thought was fair. The idea behind was to be considerate of our uniformed officers who stay on the job beyond the minimum number of years and to respect their reality particularly if they become disabled.

The cost was reasonable. It was not something we thought was unfair. I'm always sensitive to adding to pension burdens because that's a big long-term issue but this was a modest cost and a fair concept.

So, I think that also was an important part of getting to a better outcome.

Question: [Inaudible] –

Mayor: I'll have our folks tell you but again, modest in the scheme of things.

Question: And the charter aspect, was that something where – was that renewed as part of the conversation or the Senate just backed down?

Mayor: I won't speak for any of the parties. I think we had very constructive conversations and you know Leader Flanagan and I have spoken over the last couple of years off and on but we had our most extensive conversations in the last two weeks – that whole time frame since he became Leader.

And I think we found some real common ground in terms of the ability to work together on specific ideas. So, he raised real concerns about charter schools. I showed him, you know, some of the history that I think was good for him to be aware that we had included charter proactively in the pre-K effort. We intend to do it in 3-K. We had already with the after school effort. And that we were working with any number of charter schools every single day in a constructive manner.

He raised various concerns. We've been working on those concerns with him. So, I think that was a helpful piece of the equation as well.

Question: Mr. Mayor, this is obvious a day of celebration but looking at this from the perspective of a New Yorker who saw men in a room negotiating a deal that they had an entire session to work out – I'm wondering if you could comment at all on the process. And then I have a follow up question.

Mayor: Look, we understand that legislatures in general are driven by deadlines and no place more than Albany. So, what we saw this year was not that different – the final analysis than we've seen for decades. The one difference that was a real concern was when we got to Wednesday and the official end of the session, you know, we didn't see the traditional, "We'll extend a few days," or whatever. It looked much more tentative that maybe people would not be coming back.

But the dialogue always continued. I want to be fair to everyone. The dialogue never ceased literally Wednesday night into Thursday and every day after.

So, it's for all of us – it's tough when you know a deadline is coming and you understand the ramifications of them. We got down to 36 hours left. That's going to cause some concern but it would have been a lot worse if there was a breakdown in communication and that did not occur.

Everyone kept talking to everyone. It wasn't always total agreement. It wasn't always sweetness and light but everyone kept talking to everyone. And literally everyone was talking to everyone. And I think that's what always gave me hope that the ball game wasn't over until it was over.

Question: [Inaudible] about it that has changed your view of Governor Cuomo?

Mayor: Look, I don't want to get into personalities in a moment where we should be focused on our kids. I can say broadly, I've known the Governor since 1995. I've had a lot of experience working with him. He did some good work here. He did some important work and I appreciated it and it was a good dialogue. And I've said many, many times when the Governor does something to help New York City, I'm going to praise him and thank him.

So, I'm here to praise him and thank him. He did something very helpful. Like all mayors, if we disagree with a governor and think something isn't helping New York, it's my job to say that too. But this was a good effort, and we got to a good place. Let me get someone that hasn't gone. David.

Question: [Inaudible] Mr. Mayor. How much was it part of your strategy to pull your punches, in terms of with Senator Flanagan, and also with the governor, as the negotiations seemed to be not moving forward? And, is it appropriate to read into this, a détente in this sort of running feud that you've had with the governor.

Mayor: It's not a day to assess bigger structural relationships with the different players in Albany. It really isn't. We're talking about something very specific here. We had a good opportunity to work together and get something done. I'm very happy about that.

Anyone who's working with me, I'm working with them. That's the way I think about it, and look, John Flanagan and I are from different parties, and we obviously disagree on many things, but he was consistently accessible, the conversations were very respectful, and substantial, and I think we found we can work together, even though there was going to be differences, right?

So, to your original part of the question, I'm always going to try and have an open hand, if I think people are working in a way that's respectful to New York City's needs, and productive for New York City, and that's what I saw, here.

Question: [Inaudible] Were there any side agreements, not in the legislation, that involved the city education department doing anything with regard to charters?

Mayor: There were a lot of conversations about a set of issues related to charters, that we believe could be handled administratively. Those ideas are being crystallized into a final form. There's still some finishing touches to put on. There will be an upcoming announcement on that.

Question: Can you elaborate with regards to [inaudible] charters –

Mayor: Again, I'm not going to go into the specifics, because I want to respect that all the parties have to finish the final touches, as I said, but again, very productive conversations about things where we could work together.

I thought a number of the issues that were raised were perfectly fair, you know, were respectful of what the city was trying to do overall, in terms of education, were not onerous. There were ways we could work together, and that was part of what I think energized this process, was the more we talked about actual substance. When I said, "Well, wait a minute. We could work together on that. Let's see if we can solve that."

The speaker was very clear about not wanting to address those issues legislatively, which I again, think was a fair approach, given the sanctity of mayoral control of education. That didn't mean we couldn't look at other ways to address the issue, so again, I believe you'll see, very soon, some final outcomes on that. Yes.

Question: It was obviously a lot of efforts to drum up public pressure. How much do you think that played a role in this? Every year, we've been ... This year was more intense, because it got down more to the wire, but it's feeling a little bit almost like Groundhog Day, with this happening. How much did the public pressure –

Mayor: I think it mattered a lot. I don't think it's Groundhog Day, because really, every year has been a little different, and obviously this year proved that we could break out of the cycle of the last two years, which is very good for New York City and very good for our kids, and I think this proves the point that now there's no assumption about the future, that in the future, we can have a better conversation, and certainly look at the potential of longer term extensions.

But, I think the pressure was deeply felt. Look, as was referenced earlier, there's not a single person up in Albany, certainly not among the leaders, saying they have another kind of governance system they prefer. They were all hearing from business leaders, from labor leaders, from all sorts of folks, saying, "Don't let this go over the cliff." That was quite clear. 

I think it weighed on them, and I also would say at the same time, I think they, to their credit, started looking for creative solutions, which is what you'd like to see in a legislative process. I mean, there were some difficult moments along the way, but if I think back over the last two weeks, I'd say, "You know what? There were a lot of really good conversations." There were a lot of respectful conversations. There were a lot of creative conversations. There was much more dialogue than we've had in the last few years.

And I think it was productive. I think the final bill addresses concerns from all over the state, from each part of the leadership in Albany, and I think that's a good outcome. I think that's actually in some way reassuring. Yeah.

Question: What was the deciding factor in giving you two years, rather than one year, and getting one year?

Mayor: I think the constant pressure, and again, let's summarize. All of the editorial boards had weighed in in favor of mayoral control of education. 105 CEOs, the New York City Partnership, the Real Estate Board of New York City, the vast majority of the major labor unions. I mean, again, when do you see that in New York City? I mean, we can't agree on anything around here, right? So when do you see that level of consensus?

Question: [Inaudible]

Mayor: It was more energetic this year. I really believe that. There was more urgency as time went by, because in the preceding years, we didn't get quite so close to the edge. There was certainly a stronger voice from labor this time around. No, I think each year's been different, and everyone understood that this year, things started a lot later than anything we've seen previously. We all have talked about that before. I mean, a really late start, and I think that actually energized a lot of concern.

So I think the two year, in part, came from the level of concern, and the recognition that mayoral control actually does work. Unlike in the past years also, we have more of a track record. Look, let's put aside partisanship. Let's put aside personalities. In 2015, in the spring, I was still a very unknown quantity. Chancellor Fariña was still very new. You know, we're talking about now, it's been three-and-a-half years since we got here. I think that does affect the equation.

So there's a lot of things that opened up the door to two years, and obviously the bigger the discussion got, and more and more items got put on the table, that was helpful too, and that's, again, what you want in a good legislative process. Yes.

Question: A couple big items you didn't get any movement on, design build and the speed cameras. Can you speak to those, and especially on speed cameras? It seems like Senator Felder was being a major holdup there. Did you have any conversations with him?

Mayor: I have spoken to Senator Felder. I've spoken to Senator Lanza. I've obviously spoken to Senator Flanagan. Look, I get that speed cameras, to some, are unpalatable, and are not politically easy, but they save lives. They save children's lives. They save the lives of seniors in particular, and the right thing to do would have been to have the speed cameras in there, but I get that it wasn't an easy lift.

We're not going to give up, and certainly the families who have lost loved ones are not going to give up, so I'm very disappointed. It will simply cause us to redouble all of our other Vision Zero efforts. You're going to still see a lot more enforcement by the NYPD, who continue to do improvement in traffic designs, all sorts of other things, and then we'll be right back in Albany, to work for more speed cameras, so I'm not shocked, given that we always knew it was not politically easy, but I'm disappointed. 

Design build is a variation on that, too, an opportunity to save, ultimately, billions of dollars for city taxpayers, something that would have been really fair, because the state gives itself some of those same rights and flexibility. Look, I think the consciousness on this one's growing in Albany, and as I talked to the leaders about it, I think its day will come, or at least we'll make more progress going forward.

I was very heartened on a separate front, but with similar realities, the MWBE bill, which you know, a couple months ago, everyone said there was not a chance in the world. We end up with a very substantial improvement in our ability to provide contracts to MWBEs, and once again, to address the issue of the state giving itself certain rights that it didn't give the city.

So that's a good sign of some of those contradictions being addressed. Hopefully next time, that will be true for design build as well.

Question: You talked about the Congressional healthcare bill. It's sort of children are going to die because of it, if it goes through. Would you say that the lack of speed camera expansion, children are going to die, because you weren't granted that power?

Mayor: There's always a danger. There's no question about it. There's always a danger that, if we don't have more speed cameras, it puts children, in schools that don't have speed cameras at risk, but we will try, with everything we have, to compensate, with more police presence, as I said, more enforcement, changing street designs, and this is a long battle. I mean, Vision Zero's based on changing behavior fundamentally. We're going to be at this a long time.

So, once again, sometimes you know, the city has to use all of our tools, with great intensity, when we don't get the help we need from Albany, or from Washington. This is one of those times. Yeah.

Question: Mr. Mayor, is there anything you could tell us about your relationship with Senator Felder? We have some reports that he was one of the major obstacles, last week, when the deal that was there fell apart, and he was asking for these armed police officers at schools. You were willing, at one point, to give some. Can you tell us anything about your relationship with the Senator? You both served in the [inaudible] And how influential was he during these last few days, in making things more difficult, or more –

Mayor: I've known him for well over 15 years, and I spoke to him as recently as this morning, and we work together. We obviously have had some times when we agree a lot, and other times when we don't, but we've always worked together, and I certainly want to continue to work with him.

You know, the three Republican Senators from New York City are very influential. There's no question about it. And he's a Democrat, but obviously sitting with Republicans, but you know, those three are very important people in that Republican conference. We work with them on a number of things. Again, there's some areas where we really agree. There's some areas where we don't.

But, I wouldn't frame it in the negative, because we got there in the end. We got to an outcome that we're profoundly comfortable with. I mean, that's the bottom line, is did we get what we wanted? We fundamentally believed that we had to get mayoral control of education, and that if we could get to multiple years, that was the ideal. We got there, and all the other items, all the give and take, I think was a productive and fair give and take. I'm very comfortable with everything that's in this package, so I think that says, in the end, the dialogue worked. Yeah.

Question: Are we onto other topics now?

Mayor: Let's see if there's anything else about Albany-related, and then we'll move on. Anything else Albany-related, going once, twice, fire away. Is that –

Question: Is MTA Albany-related [inaudible]?

Mayor: That's definitional. Go ahead, we'll come back to you. Go ahead.

Question: Thanks. Just recently, the City of New York entered into a consent decree, with the Department of Justice, and it's going to pay out $1.3 million, to Department of Transportation employees, who were denied over several years. It goes from like 2007 to 2016, [inaudible] within the civil service. They were basically harangued with racial epithets, all through the period of time The president, the vice supervisor, who you have stipulated in this agreement was involved with this, is still in the employ of the City of New York.

Mayor: I'm going to stop you, just for – I'm sorry to interrupt. I literally don't know the details of this. I just apologize.

Question: [Inaudible]

Mayor: I am not, and I apologize profusely.

Question: You're killing me!

Mayor: You and I have known each other a long time, but no, I cannot tell a lie. I do not know the details of the case, but if you let me get up to date, I'll be happy to comment on it.

Question: Thank you.

Mayor: Okay, go ahead, Erin.

Question: The governor declared a state of emergency for the MTA today. Do you think that will make a difference? And, he's also been saying frequently, lately, that he wants the city again to contribute more to the MTA. In fact, he even said the city's contribution should be equal to the state contribution. Is that anything that has a chance of happening?

Mayor: No. Look, I respect the governor's actions in the last week a lot, and I commend him for them. Naming Joe Lhota was a really good move. Now, just to allow bipartisanship to break out for a minute in the room, you know, there's a lot of times when you wouldn't expect to be praising your general election opponent from last time. I like Joe Lhota. I've worked with Joe Lhota over many years. I think he's a very capable guy, and we have a fine rapport, which is the other irony in this situation. He and I know how to talk and work together very easily, so he called me the other day, which I really appreciated. We had a good talk.

That was an important move. I think the declaration of emergency is a smart move. I think it reflects the reality that New Yorkers are feeling. Everyone's understandably very concerned and frustrated. This speaks to that, which is good. I think the state making a bigger investment is good. I think the review, I think it's a 90 day review, or 60 day review, to figure out what are the short-term actions that can be taken. That's exactly what I've been hoping to see, because I think there are more short-term actions that can be taken, so all that is right on the money.

But this is the state's responsibility. We, in the city, have a host of things we are responsible for, that we don't have enough resources for. We would like to do a lot more affordable housing. You know, we'd like to repave a lot more roads. We'd like to fix a lot more bridges. I can go down a whole list. Build more schools, more quickly.

That's where the city's resources should go, and there's a endless ... I go out to town hall meetings, as you know, and people are demanding more and more of those things, and they have every right to. That's the city's responsibility. The state has responsibility for the MTA. 

And the other thing I'm concerned about, I've noted it before, even though I'm gratified the healthcare bill did not move this week in the Senate, it will be back on the docket in a matter of a week or two. Profoundly dangerous for the City of New York, including for our budget. If well over a million New Yorkers lose health insurance, and our public hospital system is getting much less revenue as a result, let alone the human cost to all those families, that's going to have an impact on our budget, and at least in the hundreds of millions, before you even get to the federal budget proposal, which will play out in September, which could have many hundreds of millions of dollars impact on us.

So, it's not the time for the city to be going into new veins of spending that are state responsibility. That's really the combination. It's not our responsibility, and we have to be smart about our resources, until we figure out what is going to come out of Washington.

Question: Just to be clear, you're saying you're not going to increase the contribution at all.

Mayor: Correct.

Question: Staying on topic of transportation, you introduced the New York City Ferry. Your plans for the BQX. Do you think that these alternatives will actually provide transportation that can put a dent in the overcrowded [inaudible] on the subways. I mean, you have I guess half of 500,000 riders, last week, but the trains are still overcrowded. It doesn't seem to be affecting the most crowded lines. I mean, you say you don't want to invest more money into what you think is the state's investments, but do you have any other plans to improve transportation for people who are really suffering, and can't take a ferry or a street car?

Mayor: Look, let's – there's several points there in the question. I appreciate it. First of all, the things we're investing in are very modest compared to the extent of the MTA, and I keep reminding people, the MTA has a very big budget right now, that historically has not been focused enough on the subway system. There's plenty to document this. For years, and years, and years, this was a big topic. It hasn't been as much in recent years, but for many years, especially when the Strap Hanger Advocacy was a lot bigger in this town.

There was a constant discussion about why is so much of the MTA budget going to everything but the subways? That was before, we had massive overcrowding in the subways. It should be an even more pertinent topic now. So, I think the central point is let's look at ... It's a great time to have a reset with the MTA, and I commend the governor. He's put in a great leader. He's doing the declaration of emergency, the review, putting in more money. That's fantastic. It's a great time to figure out how to address the short-term issues, particularly the signal issues, the electrical issues, with the resources the MTA has, and then we can think about the long-term.

But meanwhile, while the MTA works to try and figure out how to use its extraordinary resources to address this issue, we need to create more alternatives, because the current MTA system just isn't enough to cover all of the needs.

Our alternatives are being created in a very cost-efficient manner. The, obviously, Citi Bike, and I comment Mayor Bloomberg for that, was created in a way that was self-sustaining. The BQX, the light rail, is created in a way that works with the expected revenue that would come from development in that area, as was done with the number 7 train extension. That's sort of a way of achieving the revenue needed to get something done, and create a new and additional service in the process.

And then the ferry service is very cost-efficient in the scheme of things, and a small investment comparatively, but the difference with the ferry service is it has limitless possibility. If it continues to grow the way we're seeing, you can add any number of new routes, you can serve millions and millions of people. I mean, there's tremendous potential here, and it has a great benefit of taking pressure off the subway system.

Question: [Inaudible]

Mayor: And what?

Question: No paving.

Mayor: There you go, no paving. No stoplights. No broken cars in front of you, broken down cars in front of you. There's so many things, but the point in all that is we have tremendous potential, and that's something we will take full responsibility for in the City of New York. I want to see where that can go. I'm really impressed people like it. For a lot of people, it's very convenient, and that's something we'll take full responsibility for, but I think that's right, to explore new options, and see how far they can take us, while continuing to fix the subway.

The other thing is the Select Bus Service, which has actually been a very productive piece of the equation. It's, bluntly, the least sexy, but it's really big deal, in terms of ridership. That's been a partnership with the MTA and the City of New York. We cover a lot of the capital expenses, and they provide the operating expenses. You're going to see more of that, too, and all of that can help take some pressure off the subways, and we know one thing that's for sure, the subways are going to take a lot of renovation. There's going to be lines that are shut in the process, etcetera. We need all those other alternatives for that reason, too.

Question: Mayor, could you clarify, for the record, why last week you didn't feel it was important enough to visit the site of the derailment?

Mayor: Sure. When there's any kind of incident, I look at and my staff look at the specific situation. Every one of them's different. Every single one is different. I go somewhere when I think there's something to add, if there's something that is improved by my presence, in terms of response, if the people need answers, particularly if it's an ongoing situation. If there's concern about what the incident means. For example, obviously several times where the people of the city needed to know whether something was an act of terror or not, what the status of an investigation was, in terms of matters that obviously pertained to life and death.

There are a variety of ways you can look at it, because no two are alike, but in this situation, I got the initial reports. It became clear very quickly, the situation was contained. Thank god there were not major injuries. People were being evacuated by the fire department, effectively. Chair Lhota was on the scene.

I know how upsetting it was, of course, to everyone involved, and I know it raised real frustrations about what's going on with the subway system, but the situation was being handled, and handled well, and handled quickly. I thought, under that set of circumstances, it was not a place where I was going to add to the equation, and I think the core reality was, the situation was being addressed, and addressed effectively.

Question: But in hindsight, [inaudible] situation where, with negotiations ongoing with Albany, before [inaudible] you didn't want to take any shots at the MTA, which is State run?

Mayor: You know, I would say the other way around. I'm always going to look at a situation that is an urgent situation, and decide how to handle it, but I have to also balance it against the other elements of my job. This week, or earlier in the week, it was still not clear whether the healthcare bill was moving. We thought it was. A lot of attention was going there. Obviously, mayoral control, we were working on literally until three hours ago. Two hours ago.

So, everything has to be factored. These are decisions that people have to make in this work all the time. I used to, as you know, be on the staff of the mayor's office, when I was younger, and one thing that doesn't change about being mayor of New York City, is a huge number of resets and changes during the day, as new things emerge, but you have to also think about what's going to serve the greatest number of New Yorkers, and I fundamentally believe that if a situation was being handled properly, that I needed to stay focused on preserving mayoral control of education, and dealing with the other issues that were occurring in Albany, and on other fronts. That was the right decision. I'm comfortable with it.

Question: Is there any thought or planning going into the city creating its own health plan system, its own health insurance system?

Mayor: It's a very intriguing idea. There is not planning going into it. The idea has been forwarded from time to time. It's certainly worth a look, but I think it's a very, very tough endeavor. I think the practical option is to go and fight to stop this legislation from happening, or from being anywhere near as bad as it is in its current form, because that's the way to serve the most people most quickly, in a way that we can ensure works, because we have an imperfect system, but we at least can make sure it works for a lot of people.

I think, if we got a really, really bad result out of Washington, we'd have to look at any and all options, at that point, because you're talking about, again, estimates of up to 1.6 million New Yorkers could lose insurance under the current Senate bill, but has there been any serious consideration? No. I don't want to give you the wrong impression. Yes.

Question: Assemblyman Gottfried has been long working for a single payer [crosstalk 00:39:23] Right.

Mayor: Right, and he's right about that.

Question: Right, and it looks like New York City, with the very robust public health system, that you're kind of theoretically in a better position, theoretically, than other states, because of the significance of New York City.

Mayor: I'm not a lawyer, but the problem, to me, is the legal construct, that regulation of healthcare is at the state level overwhelmingly. That's why I think it is a very fair proposal for the state level, and something I support. I think Assemblyman Gottfried has been right all along on that, and I believe in a single payer model, nationally. I think it's hard to do at the local level, with the legal construct –

Question: [Inaudible] taken the federal government off the book, and the implication that would have for Medicaid, because [inaudible] 

Mayor: It's an excellent question. Again, since this idea has not been given any serious consideration, you're sort of farther down the analytical road than I am. I think that but it begs a bigger question in anything we do. Right now, job one is human lives. If 1.6 million people are going to lose their healthcare, we're going to lose people's lives. Lives are going to be lost. We're going to have a horrible situation for families. We're going to have to figure out every practical thing we can do to help.

I think you're right. There's a bigger issue going on, which is what is the nature of entitlements in America, and the safety net? But boy, if you look at the polling, it's stunning. I mean, now Obamacare is suddenly popular, and we know what people feel about Social Security. I think the American people have spoken, that they do believe in a strong safety net. They do believe in trying to guarantee families a decent life. I actually think it's trending more in that direction.
So, you know, if we ever got to such a day, we would have to consider those ramifications, but we're nowhere near that right now. Yeah.

Question: Mr. Mayor, going back to the question of the derailment. Did you ever consider sort of the symbolic value of your presence, that to New Yorkers, seeing the mayor there, and talking about it, and reassuring them, or speaking about the crisis more, that that has value, other than the sort of calculation you went through?

Mayor: Of course, but it still has to be considered with everything else. You know, I've said, and I mean it, I'm going to put ... Thank god, now that mayoral control is out of the way, and the healthcare fight is not out of the way. We're going to be pursuing that intensely in July, but at least mayoral control is out of the way. That's going to open up more space, as we talked about earlier, for a lot of things. I'm going to be putting more time and energy into the subways.

The good news is, as I mentioned, the things have changed in the last week, are really promising. But I'll be out there. I will be out there, seeing for myself I'll be out there speaking for New Yorkers, and I'll be out there pushing for a strong plan to address the subway problem.
The way you put it, though, I think really is telling. I don't mean about you, but about the whole equation. Of course a leader has to think about the symbolism of everything we do, but I would argue we cannot get lost in the question of symbolism. I think too many leaders have spent a career doing symbolism without substance, and I need to think about both. I've got to walk and chew gum. I've got to make sure the big, big things like mayoral control, and the right to have health insurance, are being attended to in every way possible, and I also have to think about the symbolic role I have as mayor.

I think it's easy to show up at something. I don't think that's the same thing as making anything better, right? If you can show up and make something better, that's worth it, and I think, for example, after two very painful situations, the one in Times Square, and the one in Chelsea, it was absolutely necessary to go and update people, and explain what we were doing, and showing them that they were safe, and the way we were going to handle the situation, and I can mention other ones like that, but this, to me, did not equate with those kind of situations. Yes.

Question: Independently from your decision not to go to the site, why did you not take questions about the incident that day?

Mayor: It's, look, a matter of, again, the things that we are focused on at any given moment. We're making decisions about time and energy all the time, and where to focus it. This week was a very unusual week. Two supernova issues proceeding simultaneously for the beginning of the week, and then it just evolved to mayoral control, which is vast unto itself, and has been touch and go until hours ago.

So, I'm going to put my energy where I think makes sense. When I think it is time to stop and take questions, I'm going to do it. We've obviously set, for all of you, some expectations about what we're going to do, in any week, and then others times, when we can do more. This was a week to focus on the nuts and bolts. I cannot even begin to describe how many moving parts were going into this process. I mentioned numerous, numerous conversations with the governor, with the speaker, with Leader Flanagan, with others up there in Albany, and then all the other people who were trying to help the equation from outside, as I mentioned all the folks advocating for mayoral control. That's what I was singularly focused on.

See if there's anything else, before we shut down?

Question: [Inaudible] This atmosphere of this collaboration, that kind of was [inaudible] by the crisis, does that make you optimistic about governing in general, in New York State now, more than when you were going into it, and it was looking like it was until last minute?

Mayor: Look, I think any time people cooperate it's good, and it opens up a door for more cooperation. I'm a very proud Democrat, I'm a proud Progressive, but I also really believe in bipartisanship, which I've experienced a lot as a mayor, with my fellow mayors, and which we're trying to foster in Washington, on the healthcare bill, so yeah, it was good to see some bipartisanship in Albany. It was good to see open and productive conversation. There was definitely some stripping away of perhaps some stereotypes, particularly for Leader Flanagan and I to have a consistent dialogue, and really hear each other more, I think was helpful, and again, he handled it in a very respectful and open manner.

That's good. I think, you know, you always have to be careful in any situation, to read too much into it, but sure, it's a good sign. Certainly a good sign.

Question: Mr. Mayor, the Republican field for the mayoral race narrowed pretty dramatically yesterday.

Mayor: [Inaudible] It is dramatic.

Question: [Inaudible]

Mayor: That's a 50 percent reduction. Is that right?

Question: If you would like to comment at all, on Assemblywoman Malliotakis is your primary challenger. Does this change anything about your strategy?

Mayor: Well, first of all, you know, Assemblywoman Malliotakis is now de facto the Republican nominee, so I congratulate her for that. Look, the assembly member and I have real differences. She made clear the other day, she voted for Donald Trump. That puts her at odds with the vast majority of New Yorkers. She has intensely supported the Trump administration's immigration policies, which again, I think is not the position of most New Yorkers, and I think is a mistake, and she has not said whether she agrees with the Senate healthcare bill, which would take away health insurance from over a million New Yorkers, so we have real differences. Those will all be talked about in the campaign.

I'm going to focus on what we've achieved. I'm going to focus on Pre-K, and the amount of affordable housing we've created, and the drop in crime, the reduction of stop and frisk. These are the things I think people really want to talk about, and I'm going to talk about how we're going to build on all that, with things like 3-K for example. But, we have profound differences, that obviously align to our party identities, and that's what an election is all about, to have that conversation.

Question: [Inaudible] Mr. Mayor, the one billion that the governor announced this morning, to the MTA. He said, just before this press conference, that money will not be put into the state until next year's budget. There's a lot of time between now and then.

Mayor: Sure.

Question: Does that give you pause, and are you ready to consider any other possible funding streams for the MTA? Congestion pricing ... You mentioned like a version of the millionaire's tax the other day, on the radio. Are you working on anything like that, that could help the city raise revenue?

Mayor: Many pieces to your question. Let me try and address them. If I miss, you will tell me. The million being in the next budget is normal. That's the budget cycle. 

Question: Billion.

Mayor: Billion, I'm sorry. That's even more. The billion being in the next budget is the normal state budget cycle. I've said repeatedly, the resources the MTA has right now can be better used to address the current crisis, but I commend the governor for adding the billion dollars, for sure.
Governor said it today. I've said it before. Congestion pricing is not going to move, in Albany, with the current political configuration. It's just not. There's times when I am definitive that something cannot happen politically. Other times where I think there's room for change and movement. This ain't one of them, so that's a nonstarter.

On the question of – what was the other piece, I'm sorry?

Question: So congestion pricing –

Mayor: On the Gianaris proposal, right?

Question: The millionaire's tax.

Mayor: Yeah. Look, I think it's a interesting proposal. I think it's worth consideration, but again, want to be consistent. The first thing to do is try and figure out how to take the very large MTA budget, and use it to greater effect for the subways, and refocus the energies on the subways.
But if you said long-term, where would we get more revenue for the future? I think that's a proposal worth looking at. Okay, last call. Going once. Yes. You are so active today, Bob.

Question: [Inaudible] Councilman Crowley and Councilman Torres, after London fire, said they want to have hearings to take a look in light of the lessons learned from that. In that case, public housing [inaudible] social housing, activists were talking about the lack of maintenance of the facility. Are you concerned about [inaudible] I know that you've been a champion [inaudible] Are you concerned when you see something like that, that that presents an opportunity for us to taking look at – especially in some of the combustible [inaudible]

Mayor: Sure.

Question: I know that there are five and six story units that are indeed combustible.

Mayor: A couple of things. I think we have a very situation than London. I really do. I think New York City's building code has been superior. I think we have more fire retardant buildings for a lot of reasons. Commissioner Nigro, right after the fire, was quick to tell me that there's a very different reality here, but that being said, of course we're going to look at everything, and we should. I certainly am very comfortable with hearings. I think the more we look at an issue like this, the better, but the good news about New York City is, in general, we have some of the strongest health and safety laws at any locality, not only in the country, but in the world. If we have to add to them, we'll be ready to do so. 

Thanks, everyone.