Columbia University Libraries Digital Collections: The Real Estate Record

Real estate record and builders' guide: [v. 97, no. 2506: Articles]: March 25, 1916

Text version:

AND NEW YORK, MARCH 25, 1916 HOW CAN NEW YORK CITY GET «OME RULE? Twenty Suggestions Made Which Should Be Followed—Co-opera¬ tive, Educational Campaign Necessary to Obtain Desired Result By Dr. WILLIAM H. ALLEN, Director, Institute for Public Service XT O one opposes Home Rule—in prin- A ^ ciple. Everyone believes in Home Rule—in principle. For years no one has opposed and everyone has favored Home Rule, yet we are not only still without Home Rule, but are adding new apron strings each year. Home Rule has remained a between- campaign will-o'-the-wisp, primarily be¬ cause cumulative, definite, educational work such as the Record and Guide is now doing has not been done early enough and continuously enough. To urge further reasons for Home Rule is only to harangue a convinced jury. The question is no longer, Do we want itl but How much of it do we w^ant? Why don't we get it? and How can we get ■ it? How Much Home Rule Do We Want? Advocates of Home Rule differ among themselves as to the amount of Home Rule they want. Among real estate men there are many influential ta.xpayers who are more afraid of Home Rule than of Albany interference, so far as cer¬ tain ta.x questions are concerned. Speak¬ ing generally, however, it is safe to say of believers in Home Rule that for pub¬ lic consumption the overwhelming ma¬ jority want: 1—One hundred per cent, of Home Rule over_ strictly home affairs, in¬ cluding so~caiied county affairs. 2—One hundred per cent, of Home Rule also over those parts of State affairs which the Legislature or the Constitution bas asked the city to do for the State. 3—Xo more Home Rule for New York City than we will help Rochester and Buffalo get for themselves. 4—Completest possible Home Rule compatible with the State's final re¬ sponsibility for protecting every citi¬ zen against incompetent government, "albeit." as Governor Hughes said when removing a borough president, "no evidence of corruption is shown." 5—Absolute freedom to determine tbe how and tbe iclio of getting home things done, subject only to the State's right to set up minimum standards of i('/iat must he done and tcho may not, a-ftcr proved ineompetcncej continue to do home worlc. Two more ends of Home Rule are added as in my opinion desirable, though not unanimously favored as yet. a—For city and county work in Greater New York no salaries to be set, no titles to be fixed, no numbers of employees and no terms ot office to be prescribed, no buildings to be com¬ pelled, and no mandatory pay-as-you-go bills to be passed, by the Legislature. b—Existing mandatory laws to be re¬ pealed so far as the Legislature is con¬ cerned ; that is. to be made the law of the people ot Greater New York, bind¬ ing upon tbe people ot Greater New York,, repealed by them alone. Why Don't We Get Home Rule? In five ways our previous efforts have been calculated to convert the potential oasis of Home Rule into a mirage. 1—Albany interference bas been made a scapegoat for breakdowns and short¬ comings in home control over home work. 2—Our present government has been incompletely utilized. 3—A lone hand has been played by Greater New York. 4—.Arguments for Home Rule have been too often indefinite, abstract, theoretical, or exaggerated and incon¬ sistent. 5—Educational campaigns have be¬ gun too late, bave been too "jumpy" and sporadic, and have reached too lew people. DR. WILLIAM H. ALLEN. As Senator Brown has reiterated, Al¬ bany's much reproached interference has, with few exceptions, been at New York's request, with New York votes, and with our Mayors' signatures. No one has gone to Albany faster and of- tener than believers in Home Rule. Personally, I doubt if we shall ever get Home Rule out of a campaign di¬ rected chiefly against up-state interfer¬ ence. Up-state did not throw away five hun¬ dred thousand odd dollars by failing to provide for the Public Service Commis¬ sion in city-owned buildings. Up-state did not write for us or lobby through the Board of Estimate the sub¬ way contracts in face of "let George do it" provisions for the city to pay bonuses and other "extras." Some Things Not Promised. Up-state did not demand two parole board sinecures or propose to give the Chamberlain new functions instead of extinction, or open a lunchroom for women employees when money was needed for safety, and when not a baker's dozen were willing to pay $2 annual dues. Up-state did not line up Greater New York_ forces against Home Rule by pled,ging school commissioners to vote against one man and for another man for president of the home school board. Up-state did not sign the scores of bills which Home Rule now seeks to repeal. Up-state did not propose that sinking fund accumulations be applied as they have been applied—in spite of the good motive which prompted the law—for hiding budget increases from taxpayers by taking them out of capital instead of out of annual taxes. Up-state did not write the midstream resignations which have "shot holes" in the execution of the most ambitious con¬ structive program the nation has ever seen promised and begun. Nor did up¬ state inaugurate the policy of "tuberose eulogy" which has condoned delays ^nd extravagances that local ofiicers and other leaders of public discussion would not dream of defending if there were no .Albany scapegoat. Government Incompletely Utilized. In testifying before the Brown legis¬ lative committee several of our present officers have declared that we have gone about as far as we can without Home Rule, have reached the limit under our present organization, have cut the budget to the bone, etc. Frankly, I feel that if Nevv York ta.xpayers have not more sincerity and more sense than to endorse such hyperbole, they are not en¬ titled to Home Rule. Until such state¬ ments are challenged by outsiders and repudiated by insiders I do not believe vve can bring about the team work neces¬ sary to secure Home Rule. We cannot pull together if we talk our creed with crossed fingers. Savings Promised. In 1909 we were promised savings, not of a thousand, and not even of a few millions, not during the four-year period, but each year. Instead our budgets for operating city departments the next five years exceeded by $35,000,- 000 the 1909 admittedly waste-swollen base—and this after excluding public school increases. In 1913 we were promised savings again not of a few thousands, or even of a million, but, the present mayor said, "millions" a year, others said $10,- 000,000 to $25,000,000. Nor were those savings predicated upon obtaining Home Rule, although efforts to secure Home Rule were pledged. No candidate for mayor or comptroller in 1917 will for one minute admit that the relatively small reductions effected are what either the people or the pledgers had in mind in 1913. And we all know that the made-in-Albany State tax shares credit for the 1915 reductions. In the budgets under our absolute con¬ trol only the surface of economy has been scratched. Go back to 1913 and 1909, think of what we all believed and were assured of at that time, and then think of what a paltry nuinber of em¬ ployees have been found unnecessary. No one claims that nepotism and other favor have yet ceased to exist. Pledged to name employees entirely on merit, after a nation-wide advertising of search for ability, officers have filled exempt positions with which Albany had nothing to do, with persons some of ^ whom were not known to possess ability, others of whom were notorious for lacking ability. Even reform or¬ ganizations have exchanged the enviable position of frank analysts and inter¬ preters for unenviable patronage and pose as "next of kin." "heir apparent" and the "man behind." Elected for Definite Purpose. In December, 1913, an elective officer said: "We were elected not to do the work of any party, but to do the work of the whole citizenry. We were elect¬ ed to give a business administration . . . without regard to politics, and that in so far as I have the ability and the power, I propose to do." In 1916, however, the spokesman for the oflicer says ".Appointments [were] deliberately