Columbia University Libraries Digital Collections: The Real Estate Record

Real estate record and builders' guide: [v. 97, no. 2500: Articles]: February 12, 1916

Text version:

REAL. ESTATE NEW YORK, FEBRUARY 12, 1916 HOME RULE FOR CITY IMPERATIVE New York City Should Have Control Over Local Ex¬ penditures—Efficient Government and Saving the Result By JOHN PURROY MITCHEL, Mayor, City of New York T T is impossible for one to occupy a * responsible position in the govern¬ ment of the City of New York without being compelled daily to consider some aspect of the very difficult problem of the relations between this city and the State of which it is an integral part. Even a casual observer of our political and civic life must realize that there are objectionable elements in this relation¬ ship as it now exists. Personally I have given a great deal of time and attention to this problem. I feel very deeply that the city cannot work out its own salva¬ tion in the matter of effective and eco¬ nomical government until its relation with the State Legislature has been established upon some more satisfactory basis than now prevails. Vigilant Lobby Necessary. Nobody appreciates more fully than I the value of the protection which the city enjoys by reason of the power vested in the Mayor to exercise a sus¬ pensive veto on special legislation affect¬ ing the city. In spite of this, however, it is well known that we are compelled to maintain a vigilant lobby at Albany in order that we may be kept in touch with proposals for city legislation that are introduced, in order that we may op¬ pose in their inception such proposals as are deemed to be deleterious to the best interests of the city, and in order that we may promote those proposals which are regarded as necessary or advisable. It should always be borne in mind that the City of New York is operating under a charter and group of laws that are exceedingly complicated and detailed in character. In this charter and these laws there are many provisions which have no place whatever in the funda¬ mental law of a city—provisions con¬ cerning matters of detail which should clearly be left to the discretion of the officers who are actively engaged in the conduct of the city's business. The net result of all this is that whenever the city, acting through its own officers, de¬ sires to put into efifect any piece of con¬ structive reform, application must al¬ most invariably be made to Albany for a change in the charter or laws ap¬ plicable to the city. The proposed change may relate to a matter of most intimate and, if I may so put it, personal concern to the city as such. Ridiculous Supervision. We are, nevertheless, compelled to plead our cause before members of the Legislature from all parts of the State— members who for the most part have little interest in or knowledge of the conditions and requirements of this city and its government. To my mind it is little short of ridiculous that these meni- bers should have any part whatever in determining whether New York City shall purchase its supplies through the medium of a central agency, or whether we shall have a centralized department of markets, or whether we shall enter into a contract for the disposal of our .garbage, or whether we shall have one Commissioner of Accounts instead of two, or whether the office of City Cham¬ berlain shall be reconstructed so as to HON. JOHN PURROY MITCHEL. make it a more effective agency in our government. This city contains approximately half of the population of the State of New York. More than seventy per cent, of the people of the State reside in incor¬ porated cities. If the people of the State are capable of self-government, it is obviously absurd to say that the people of the cities are not capable of self-governinent. It is simply a fact that the people of the State are in major part the people of the cities of the State. New York City Capable. I am ready to concede that the State government is sometimes of higher grade and tone than the governinent of this or that city, but this is subject to change as the wheel of politics revolves. It is often true that the .government of a particular city is superior to the govern¬ ment of the State in point of character, ability and devotedness to the public weal. It seems to me that against the proposal to grant home rule to the cities of New York State no argument worthy of consideration can he drawn from the notion that the people of our cities, and especially the people of New York City, need to be protected against themselves by the representatives of the State. If instances of the well-working of such protection may be cited, so also have there been numerous instances of its ill-working. I make bold to declare that tlie people of the City of New York are capable of producing and maintain¬ ing, without assistance from Albany, a government appropriate to their own needs. Familiar With Difficulties. I am under no delusions about the difficulties that inhere in the proposal to grant to the City of New York the power to regulate those affairs which are primarily, if not wholly, of local in¬ terest and concern. It would be well, indeed, if the people of the city should clearly understand the particular ele¬ ments of difficulty that are found in this problem. 1 think 1 can set these forth with clearness even in an article as brief as this must of necessity be, In the first place, we can rely upon a constitutional amendment to afford us the complete relief that we seek. There IS a fundamental doctrine of our law that the Legislature may not delegate Legislative powers. Generally speakin-^ It may doubtless be said that while the Legislature can delegate to a city the powder to enact local ordinances, which power IS unquestionably Legislative in character, the Legislature may not dele¬ gate to the city the power to make a charter. We cannot, therefore, appeal to the Legislature for a thorough-going grant of the right to make our own local charter. Just how far, however, the Legislature may go in the direction of conferring upon the city broader power over certain matters that are dealt with in the charter is a matter which is as yet not clearly and definitely settled in our law. Personally, I am of the opinion that the Legislature may by simple statu¬ tory enactment greatly broaden the powers which the city now has with re¬ spect to the organization and operation of Its own government. At least, I am convinced that the time has come when this whole question should be thorough¬ ly threshed out before the courts. City Under Handicap. The simple and obvious fact is that the Legislature may grant to a city a charter which estabHshes merely the skel¬ eton of its government and it may con¬ fer upon the corporate authorities of such city the power to transform this skeleton into a complete organism. On the other hand, the Legislature may de¬ cide not only to provide the skeleton of the city's government hut may also deal with every minute detail relating to the organization and operation of that government. This latter is what the Legislature has done with the City of New York. The result is that the cor¬ porate authorities of the city are placed under a tremendous handicap. I am in¬ clined to believe that in spite of the elaborations of the city's charter the Legislature could extend to us the power to remotild and reshape certain aspects of the city government and this could be done through the medium of one or more brief amendments to the charter. 1 believe that we should ask the Legis¬ lature to extend to us every power of local self-government that is within its pow-er. But this is not all. The Legislature can go only a little way. The constitution must be changed to meet our further needs. Scope of Powers. In the second place, assuming that a constitutional amendment for this pur¬ pose is to be drafted, we are face to face with the problem of the scope of powers that we want granted to us. I am not one of those who believe that this question of the scope of the city's power can be determined by the use of any general phrases giving the city con- tori over "matters of local concern" and reserving to the State Legislature the right to enact laws in "matters of State concern." Such phrases are entirely too general and vague to accomplish an ade¬ quate separation of powers between the city on the one hand and the State on the other. ___.