I have voiced opposition to the MTA’s plan to raise the fare since the authority announced its intentions earlier this fall. In October, I gathered with other state legislators and transit advocates on the steps of City Hall to urge the MTA to hold all final action on a fare hike plan until after April 15, 2008. Twenty-two state legislators signed a letter to the MTA asking the authority to wait to make a decision until after the state budget is negotiated in March. The MTA recently proposed a fare increase as part of its financial plan for 2008, effective in “early 2008.” To date, more than 110 lawmakers have signed on in opposition to a fare hike.

The MTA should put the brakes on any talk of fare increases until legislators have the opportunity to explore sending state dollars to the transit authority through the yearly budget process. It is premature to approve a hike for straphangers before even asking state government for assistance, particularly given the new administration in Albany. Throughout the 12 years of the previous administration, the MTA received no permanent new state operating aid, although transit riders saw the base fare increase from $1.25 to $2.00.

Governor Spitzer recently announced his intention to hold the base fare at $2.00, based on an unanticipated surplus in the MTA’s budget. I applaud this first step, but I believe we need a commitment to holding the line on all fares—including unlimited weekly and monthly commuter passes, which the majority of everyday New Yorkers use to get around. I have written to the Governor to request that he make necessary appropriations in his Executive Budget (due January 15) to fully save the fare. My colleagues and I have also requested a meeting with the Governor to discuss how we can work together on a budget that will protect mass transit, a lifeline for most New Yorkers and the lifeblood of the city’s economy.

I am proud to support the Reproductive Health and Privacy Protection Act (RHAPPA), which updates New York’s laws regarding abortion and codifies a woman’s right to privacy in reproductive medical decision-making. These are dangerous days for a woman’s right to choose. Roe v. Wade has been under constant attack since it was decided in 1973, but at no time has its position seemed as tenuous as it does now. President Bush and his appointments to the Supreme Court have proven to be intent on systematically dismantling years of legal precedent. The Court’s 5-4 decision in April 2007 to uphold the Federal Abortion Ban, the only federal law banning abortion without providing an exception to protect a woman’s health, has placed abortion rights across the country in grave danger. We must proactively protect a woman’s right to access safe and legal abortions here in New York.

In 1970, New York amended its penal code and made it legal for doctors to perform abortions, a landmark legislative victory that preceded Roe v. Wade by three years. That law was groundbreaking for its time and is an aspect of our state’s history we are all proud of, but it needs to be updated. New York’s law does not affirmatively grant women the right to an abortion; the legal basis for the vested right to obtain an abortion in New York is based in the Federal Constitution, Roe v. Wade, and the legal cases that followed it.

Current law in New York falls short of protecting women who experience health issues late in their pregnancies. It is illegal to obtain an abortion in New York after 24 weeks, but an exception is made when a woman’s life is at risk. The law does not, however, allow a woman to seek an abortion after 24 weeks if her health is at risk. The glaring omission of an exception for the sake of a woman’s health flies in the face of Supreme Court precedent. A number of Supreme Court decisions have expressly ruled that it is unconstitutional for states to ban abortions, even after fetal viability, without providing an exception that allows a woman to terminate a pregnancy when it is necessary to protect her life or her health. The vast majority of abortions are performed within the first trimester, but there are instances when women experience pregnancy complications that place their life or health at risk. I strongly believe that women and their families, in consultation with their physician, should have the right to make their own private medical decisions.

The bill addresses these shortcomings in a number of ways. It includes specific language delineating a woman’s right to privacy in medical decision-making, safeguarding not only the right to terminate a pregnancy but also the right to bear a child, as well as the right to use or refuse birth control. RHAPPA aligns state law with current policy and practice as afforded by Roe v. Wade: the archaic post-24-week ban is replaced with a viability line, which depends on the case, and an exception is created to protect a woman’s health. The 1970 statute regarding abortion is located in the state’s Penal Code; RHAPPA appropriately treats abortion and contraception as public health issues by moving the provisions into the Public Health law. Finally, the bill protects women’s health and safety by allowing only qualified, licensed medical professionals to provide abortion services. Importantly, RHAPPA does not remove existing “conscience protections,” which allow individuals to refuse to provide an abortion if they have religious or moral objections and similarly does not force religious hospitals to provide abortions.

New York has long been a leader in protecting and strengthening a woman’s right to make her own reproductive choices. We must act now, at this critical juncture, to safeguard these rights and to ensure that they are not eroded further. I look forward to leading the fight when I return to Albany in January for the coming session.

Assemblymember Rosenthal celebrates landmark legal decision with nail salon workers.

Just weeks after forming the Network, nail salon workers scored a major victory in the courts. A jury in Federal District Court awarded three nail salon workers from 167 Nail Plaza more than $225,000 for labor violations and retaliatory actions. The 167 Nail Plaza workers were the first nail salon workers in the country to publicly stand up and demand their rights, and their story will no doubt inspire many other workers facing similar conditions. I am working on several initiatives related to improving the conditions in these salons as well as requiring the use of safer cosmetic products.

Earlier this fall, I testified before the New York City Department of Buildings (DOB) in favor of adopting a rule that would permit cogeneration in residential buildings. As a member of the Assembly Energy Committee, I am committed to improving and expanding the opportunities for New Yorkers to pursue responsible energy practices. Cogeneration presents one promising and viable approach to achieving environmental sustainability.

Cogeneration, or combined heat and power, refers to the process of using a power source to simultaneously generate both electricity and useful heat. In residential buildings, cogeneration uses power generators to heat space or water, and excess byproduct energy is converted to electricity. The electricity can then be used for the building or potentially sold back into the electric power grid.

Cogeneration saves money by improving energy efficiency and reducing fuel costs, improves power reliability by locating power systems at the point of use, and reduces environmental impact by decreasing overall usage of fossil fuels. More than 4000 cogeneration generators have been installed across the world, and both the U.S. Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency have endorsed this technology. Additionally, we have seen locally the effects of Con Edison’s overstretched capacity on its grid, so the greater the number of large-scale residential buildings that can reduce pressure on that grid, the better.

At the hearing, I urged DOB to swiftly adopt a new rule which will allow for the use of “microturbine” cogeneration technology in residential buildings in New York City. Several buildings in the district are seeking permits for the use of this technology, but have been left in the lurch because of the absence of permitting guidelines for cogeneration, creating hardship and frustration for the owners, managers, and residents of those buildings. I have spoken with numerous residents in these buildings who are anxious to move ahead with cogeneration.

Two years have passed since DOB issued a moratorium on the use of microturbines. This has given both DOB and the Fire Department of New York ample time to evaluate whether the use of this technology in residential buildings is safe. Cogeneration is a low-cost, innovative way to address our current energy and climate crisis. We in government should do all that we can to encourage these solutions, not hamper them. I am hopeful that DOB will adopt a new rule as soon as possible permitting cogeneration in residential buildings, so that those committed residents who are eagerly waiting to make their homes more sustainable and environmentally sound have the opportunity to do so.

Toxic mold in buildings is a serious and prevalent indoor environmental health problem. Toxic mold can cause allergies, trigger asthma attacks, detrimentally affect the function of vital human organs, and increase susceptibility to colds and flu. The increasing rate of mold complaints city agencies and my own office have been receiving indicates that we are not doing enough to prevent and combat this growing problem. According to a report by the Public Advocate’s office, the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development received 21,121 complaints of mold in 2006; by contrast, HPD received only 8,288 mold complaints in 2001, representing a 154% increase in just five years.

The constituents who have contacted my office about toxic mold in their apartments are often at wit’s end. Mold has the unique quality of requiring a very serious fix. If the underlying cause of mold is not addressed, the problem will reappear again and again, no matter how many times violations are written and the problem is “fixed,” which in too many cases translates into a quick paint job. In one particularly sad case, a widow suffering from asthma who lost her husband to health problems had been coping with a recurring, moldy, soggy ceiling since the early 1990’s, and only recently was able to get a full renovation.

To begin to combat this issue, I co-convened a roundtable discussion this past fall to gather state and city agencies, experts, advocates, and stakeholders to discuss how better to prevent and address indoor mold. Already, we are seeing positive action—one of the major requests coming out of the roundtable was that the State Toxic Mold Task Force finally be convened. Despite a 2005 statute mandating that the governor to convene a 14-member task force to assess the statewide scope and magnitude of the toxic mold problem, no task force was ever assembled. In response to our roundtable and a letter from me and some of my colleagues in the legislature, the New York State Department of Health announced its first meeting held on December 4, 2007.

I am pleased to report to you about my ongoing efforts to make our streets safer for seniors and others. This fall, in conjunction with Transportation Alternatives, I released a report of initial findings and recommendations for four study sites in the West 60’s and 70’s. The study sites and recommendations were generated by local seniors who participated in a series of meetings, forums, and design charrettes at Council Senior Center and Lincoln Square Neighborhood Center. I have been approached time and again about the unacceptable near-misses and accidents between pedestrians and motor vehicles. With stresses such as the rash of construction projects going up throughout the neighborhood and the closure of the West Side Highway 72nd Street off-ramp, conditions for pedestrians are deteriorating rapidly. The suggestions put forth in our Pedestrian Safety Action Plan are based on the experiences of residents in the neighborhood and use techniques such as increasing crossing time, adding leading pedestrian intervals, and installing curb extensions and bollard-protected medians on wide streets like West End Avenue.

These recommendations will be coupled with the results of a second, larger study I am sponsoring from West 79th Street to West 96th Street. I hosted the first kick-off meeting for this northern study area and received many excellent suggestions for intersections and concerns to examine more closely. Meeting attendees received cameras to use to document problems. We will be reconvening in the coming months to focus our attention on specific study sites and corridors and how to address the issues we identify. One problem that many have raised is the surge of traffic that has occurred at West 79th Street and Riverside Drive due to the closure of the 72nd Street off-ramp, which I strongly opposed. The increased number of vehicles has worsened an already dangerous intersection. Even if you were unable to attend the first meeting, I encourage you to get involved by contacting my office at 212-873-6368.