Government By and For Millenial America: A Blueprint for 21st Century Government

Using this generation's unique ethos and commitment to pragmatic problem-solving, Millennials across the country have collaborated to design their vision for a 21st century democracy and reject the idea that our system is too broken, too stagnant, and too outdated. They have identified the parts of the system that need to be fixed while articulating what a true democracy should look like. Government By and For Millennial America, the third installment of our blueprint series, tackles some of the most fundamental, divisive, and difficult questions on the purpose of government in furthering our country's progress: how can we hear from more voices? How can we be more transparent? How can government be more egalitarian? How can we both support individual communities and the common good of every American? Most importantly, this pursuit is grounded in one fundamental idea that defines America's distinctive pursuit of self-governance: in the words of our namesake, Let us never forget that government is ourselves and not an alien power over us. The ultimate rulers of our democracy are not a President and senators and congressmen and government officials, but the voters of this country. - President Franklin D. Roosevelt We set out to craft a blueprint, and discovered, in conversations with over a thousand young people across the country, that the Millennial generation is not yet ready to give up on America's ever evolving experiment in a government by and for the people

Aspetti epidemiologici della calcolosi di calcio in Italia: distribuzione dei fenotipi intermedi nella popolazione italiana

n/

Should Local Governments Support the Sharing Economy?

Companies in today’s so-called “sharing economy” face legal battles across the country with state and local regulators. But according to the authors of a new working paper, these companies may come to find state and local governments are their closest allies. As it now stands, the sharing economy might also be called the “controversy economy.” Taxi-drivers accuse Uber, the ride-sharing app, of unfair competition. Hotels challenge Airbnb, the apartment-sharing website, with claims of tax fraud and illegal operation. Customers allege that Zipcar, the car-sharing company, uses deceptive business practices. As a result, many state and local governments have joined the battle against sharing companies, attempting to develop new regulatory schemes or even banning these companies altogether. Meanwhile, many sharing companies face public relations struggles as they become increasingly hostile toward regulation. Yet with time, and as the sharing economy grows in popularity, things may change. Although it is unlikely that new sharing companies will go on unregulated, they may win active support from state and local governments, according to a recent working paper by Daniel Rauch of Yale Law School and David Schleicher, an Associate Professor of Law at George Mason University School of Law. The authors predict that, in coming years, state and local governments will actively subsidize the sharing economy in an attempt to increase public goods and redistribute resources. According to Rauch and Schleicher, the industries that sharing companies have penetrated most—transportation, housing, and restaurants, for example—are usually subject to extensive local-level interest and support. Through appropriate subsidies and regulations, local governments may be able to harness these new companies to advance urban development goals. Rauch and Schleicher explain their rationale with an analogy to sports stadium subsidies. They argue that sharing companies can generate the same popular support among city residents that sports teams generate because sharing companies create “two-sided markets” for public goods. Although fervor surrounding two-sided markets isn’t exactly the same thing as sports team fandom, it does offer opportunities for local communities. In two-sided markets, residents are not only consumers, but they effectively become co-producers of “spare power tools,” “idle cars,” and other goods or services that they already have on hand and can then transform into profits. Residents also can benefit from the “world-class” reputation that sharing company services can bestow on cities. Rauch and Schleicher argue that cultural centers, like sports stadiums, attract well-educated and highly skilled human capital, suggesting these centers are an “economically essential” investment for cities. Similarly, a network of thriving sharing companies can bring the same “on-the-map-ness” that large sports stadiums bring to cities. However, sports stadium subsidies are not without critique. Rauch and Schleicher recognize these critiques, including a lack of demonstrated job growth and city revitalization. Predictably, many sharing companies face similar criticisms. Technology-driven sharing systems currently target wealthy consumers, so the benefits often are not well distributed. They arguably also drive up transportation and housing prices for all people, and they face criticism for espousing progressive values while servicing “good old [corporate] greed.” On a map of Uber routes in New York City, the wealthiest parts of Manhattan and Brooklyn are illuminated in a fury of usage. The Bronx, considered by some to be the poorest borough, is largely invisible. Still, Rauch and Schleicher argue that the sharing economy may be used to benefit low-income residents and the urban poor. Similar to how cities can require that residential developers provide housing units at affordable prices, local governments could require that sharing companies provide “expanded operations in poorer areas, mandated discounts in such areas, or hiring advantages for workers from disadvantaged backgrounds.” Sharing companies argue that citizens already see these redistributive qualities. Uber claims that it provides more cars in the city’s underserved areas than traditional taxis, and Airbnb says it brings millions of dollars to less visited areas in New York City. With the proper redistributive requirements, Rauch and Schleicher argue, cities can use sharing companies to bring wealth and opportunity to all residents. Rauch and Schleicher go further to claim that local governments should begin working with sharing companies to provide government services. Already, they say, cities are beginning to take advantage of sharing company services, including paying for ZipCar memberships for city employees and sharing construction equipment with other municipalities. By capitalizing on sharing company systems, local governments can reduce their own expenses. Although the working paper does not recommend specific policies, Rauch and Schleicher state that it is time for all players—governments, companies, and individual citizens alike—to shift their approach to the sharing economy. Rather than fighting against local regulation, they recommend sharing companies become less oppositional to local government and instead seek opportunities to enhance their businesses by obtaining “rents and contracts through lobbying and bidding.” At the same time, they argue that policymakers and citizens should consider what they want from these companies and, using the best available data, decide which policies they might want to pursue in the future

When Politicians Are Not Experts, Agencies Step In

Members of Congress are not experts in everything. When preparing legislation in fields that require technical competence, they often call on relevant federal agencies for drafting assistance. Yet these requests can implicate separation of power concerns between the legislative and executive branches, forcing agency officials to walk a slippery slope in their response. The Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS), a federal agency dedicated to improving the work of other federal agencies, has taken up this issue and initiated a project to examine the role of agency officials in the legislative process. The project’s lead consultant, Christopher J. Walker, a professor at the Ohio State University Moritz College of Law, recently presented a draft report to ACUS recommending a series of best practices for agency legislative engagement. Based on a series of interviews and survey responses from agency officials, Walker found that agencies generally responded to every request for drafting assistance that they received from Congress—“regardless of the political party affiliation of the requesting Member, the effect the legislation would have on the agency, [or] the likelihood of such legislation actually being enacted.” Responding to these requests can strengthen an agency’s relationship with Congress as well as ensure that new legislation remains compatible with the agency’s existing mission. However, agencies do face problems when working with congressional requesters. Turnover of legislative staff and changes in party control of congressional committees diminishes the productivity of agency-Congress relationships and reduces congressional staff members’ knowledge of preexisting statutes and regulations, according to Walker’s report. In addition, agencies working with congressional requesters often must decipher whether the requesters want technical assistance or the agency’s position on the proposed legislation. Official articulations of executive agency positions require preclearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in the White House. Written official statements on pending bills, draft bills that an agency wishes to present to Congress, and other legislative activities all require preclearance. At the same time, White House preclearance is not required for legislative language that agencies offer to congressional committees as a “drafting service” provided that the agency makes clear that the administration or agency is not bound to the position espoused in the drafted language. But drawing the line between “drafting service” and other legislative efforts requiring preclearance is not always clear. Agencies perennially struggle with how to provide assistance requested without circumventing the OMB’s preclearance requirements. In his interviews, Walker found that most agency staff believe that “what congressional staffers really want is to know the agency’s substantive position on the proposed legislation.” Drawing the line between informal assistance and a formal position statement on a draft bill can put agencies in a difficult position. To combat these problems and improve the technical drafting assistance process generally, Walker identified a number of intra-agency and extra-agency best practices. His study’s recommendations are currently being considered for adoption by ACUS as a whole. One recommendation stresses the importance of keeping an agency’s legislative affairs staff “separate and distinct” from its legislative legal counsel. By keeping them separate, an agency can make day-to-day, politically sensitive decisions about Congress through its legislative affairs staff, while also providing non-partisan, expert assistance in the legislative process through its legislative counsel. Walker argues that this bifurcation can help alleviate—even if it does not completely eliminate—the slippery slope of agencies crossing the line into legislative work that requires preclearance. Since technical drafting assistance can also occur without the involvement of legislative affairs staff or legislative counsel, Walker also recommends that agencies implement official policies and procedures to govern relationships with congressional staffers. Having official guidelines for agency employees to follow helps coordinate technical drafting assistance efforts across the agency and identify situations requiring OMB involvement. Providing meaningful assistance without providing an official position requires meeting congressional requesters where they are. To that end, Walker highlights the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s practice of providing congressional requesters with so-called “Ramseyer/Cordon drafts.” These drafts serve as comparative analyses by redlining existing law to show the proposed legislation’s likely effect. This practice helps remind congressional requesters of existing law and to avoid unintended consequences. Walker also explores other plans to strengthen agency-Congress relationships so that all parties can better anticipate potential problems and proactively address them. Such plans include facilitating face-to-face meetings to build trust, offering in-person educational programs to keep congressional staffers informed of agency operations and initiatives, as well as organizing temporary working opportunities in Congress for interested agency personnel. Walker believes that such experiences diffuse insider knowledge throughout congressional and agency circles. ACUS recently held a committee meeting to discuss Walker’s report and his suggested recommendations. The next committee meeting will be held on October 22, 2015. ACUS is also currently accepting public comments on the report. Final consideration of Walker’s report and related recommendations is expected in December

Committee Recommends Cautious Use of Issue Exhaustion Doctrine in Rulemaking Cases

The “issue exhaustion” doctrine generally prevents parties to a lawsuit from raising issues in court that they did not raise during the administrative process. The doctrine comes into play both when an issue could have arisen in a quasi-judicial or adjudicatory proceeding and also in a legislative rulemaking conducted by an agency. Yet if courts apply the issue exhaustion doctrine too strictly, might this sometimes preclude legitimate and important challenges to administrative overreach? A committee of the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS) thinks so and has proposed a series of recommendations that urge courts to recognize the inapplicability of issue exhaustion in certain cases involving administrative rulemaking. ACUS is a federal agency dedicated to making recommendations to improve governmental processes. The committee’s proposed recommendation will be considered next month by the full Conference. The committee’s draft recommendation is based on a report prepared by Jeffery S. Lubbers, a professor at Washington College of Law at American University and a former ACUS Research Director. Lubbers concluded that overbroad application of the issue exhaustion doctrine may work to the detriment of the rulemaking process. Sometimes the application of the doctrine may lead, Lubbers reported, to information overload in agency proceedings because interested groups feel the need to file “‘shotgun’ comments in an effort to inoculate themselves from later issue-exhaustion defenses.” Moreover, he argued that issue exhaustion may limit judicial review of administrative action only to issues raised by well-resourced commenters. Since less-resourced commenters cannot afford to monitor and participate in every rulemaking that may affect them, the doctrine may operate as an “unjustifiable procedural barrier” to participation by “a diverse, pluralistic array of parties.” The issue exhaustion requirement originates from the exhaustion-of-remedies doctrine. This common law doctrine prevents parties from seeking judicial review of agency action until they have pursued and “exhausted” all available administrative remedies—typically, appeals within the agency. It purportedly protects the integrity of the administrative system by allowing agencies to resolve their own errors before judicial involvement. It additionally lightens the burden of overworked courts by contributing a filter for “legitimate” claims and an additional barrier to review. Issue exhaustion follows the same principles. Yet while it may be reasonable to restrict judicial review only to the issues presented before an agency in an adjudication because the dispute is between one distinct party and the agency, the legislative nature of an agency rulemaking proceeding, which can involve a large and diverse set of interests, makes issue exhaustion more worrisome. In a rulemaking, unspecified claims that arise later may be just as important and legitimate as claims identified in the notice-and-comment process; the former claims may well often fail to enter into the rulemaking process for justifiable reasons. Lubbers’ report to ACUS – and the committee draft recommendation based on that report – does not propose an outright ban on application of the issue exhaustion doctrine in rulemaking cases. For example, Lubbers suggests that the issue exhaustion doctrine may make sense when litigants challenging a rule argue that the agency acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner, or when disputes arise about whether the agency made a proper decision based on the evidence presented. In these cases, issue exhaustion may “ensure that the agency has had the opportunity to bring its expertise on the issue before it comes to court.” The draft ACUS recommendation would urge courts to keep a set of basic principles in mind when applying the issue exhaustion requirement in the context of rulemaking review. It would recommend considering the circumstances that led to a litigant’s failure to raise the issue during the administrative process. These circumstances may include the futility of raising the issue, the inability of the party to raise the issue, procedural requirements impeding the raising of the issue, and other extraordinary circumstances. The draft recommendation further advises agencies to take these kinds of circumstances into account before raising issue exhaustion as a litigation defense. ACUS will formally consider approving the draft recommendation at its upcoming plenary session on September 18, 2015

New Federal Guidance Issued on Public-Private Toll Roads

The private operator of a toll road in Indiana recently filed for bankruptcy, “the latest example of a private investment in public infrastructure that failed to meet expectations,” according to a report in the Wall Street Journal. Still, as transportation infrastructure in the United States continues to deteriorate, public-private partnerships are becoming more and more common. To combat toll road failures, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration issued a contract guide for state and local agencies pursuing toll road projects in partnership with private entities. The guide presents a model for structuring public-private partnerships in U.S. highway development projects. It states that the public entity “may establish a series of limitations” on the private entity’s tolling rights in order to “address important public policy objectives” and properly allocate risk. If, in a highway project, the partnership decides that the private entity should bear the economic risk of whether the highway is actually used (also known as “user demand”), the partnership may develop a toll road concession contract. Toll road concession contracts are agreements that provide private partners with the right to establish and enforce tolls in exchange for constructing and financing a road. Given the diversity of public-private projects within the transportation sector, “a set of prescriptive, standardized contracts for use in public-private transactions would not be acceptable or desirable” to all state and local agencies. Therefore, the guide aims to serve “as an educational reference” for agencies looking to form public-private partnerships. The guide says that toll rates “are generally determined by an algorithm agreed upon by the [private entity] and the [government agency].” Further, the guide suggests that the private party should be subject to “little restriction” on setting toll rates because the private party often bears the risk of a drop in user demand. In practice, however, because toll road projects directly impact the public, private and public partners must compromise. In part, toll rates might depend on consumer demand because the private entity may rely on toll revenue to build, maintain, and expand the project in accordance with use. However, since toll rates can come under public scrutiny, like when commuters argue that the tolls adversely affect low-income drivers, the public entity should maintain some type of veto power over the toll rate, according to the guide. Additionally, the guide points out that the public entity may want to exempt certain vehicles from having to pay tolls. For example, lawmakers may wish to exempt ambulances, police cars, and fire trucks from toll fees. Or, they may want to promote fuel efficiency and traffic congestion relief by exempting commuter buses and taxis. Some states, like Florida and Georgia, have attempted to promote carpooling by providing registered carpool vehicles with a toll exemption or discount. The guide also states that public entities should generally reserve the right to suspend tolling collection, despite its impact on the private entity. During Hurricane Sandy, for example, region-wide tolls were suspended to speed up public evacuation. However, public entities were not liable for private toll revenue loss. That does not mean that public entities can always escape liability. In the Hurricane Sandy example, if the toll exemption covers other toll roads that are not similarly affected by the need for speedy evacuation, the public entity may be liable for the private entity’s toll revenue losses. Ensuring that public-private partnerships prioritize the public welfare requires a difficult balancing act. When allocating risk and reward, the guide states that toll road agreements must “leave enough incentive for the [private entity] to perform at the highest levels.” However, the guide also attempts to leave space for public partners to maintain certain rights to ensure that the public good—both specifically, as in the physical public road, and more generally, as in equal and just access to that road—is rightly delivered. While the guide provides a model for state and local governments considering public-private partnerships, exactly what those contracts should look like, and thus what the balancing act should entail, is a matter of debate. The debate about balancing interests is likely to permeate other sectors, as well. Public-private partnerships form in a range of critical public sectors around the world, such as water, waste management, and education, and are no stranger to critique. Recent research from the University of Toronto highlighted flaws in how governments assess the benefits of public-private projects as opposed to more conventional projects. Nevertheless, some scholars argue that the U.S. is fertile ground for an emerging public-private partnership market

New Federal Guidance Issued on Public-Private Toll Roads

The private operator of a toll road in Indiana recently filed for bankruptcy, “the latest example of a private investment in public infrastructure that failed to meet expectations,” according to a report in the Wall Street Journal. Still, as transportation infrastructure in the United States continues to deteriorate, public-private partnerships are becoming more and more common. To combat toll road failures, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration issued a contract guide for state and local agencies pursuing toll road projects in partnership with private entities. The guide presents a model for structuring public-private partnerships in U.S. highway development projects. It states that the public entity “may establish a series of limitations” on the private entity’s tolling rights in order to “address important public policy objectives” and properly allocate risk. If, in a highway project, the partnership decides that the private entity should bear the economic risk of whether the highway is actually used (also known as “user demand”), the partnership may develop a toll road concession contract. Toll road concession contracts are agreements that provide private partners with the right to establish and enforce tolls in exchange for constructing and financing a road. Given the diversity of public-private projects within the transportation sector, “a set of prescriptive, standardized contracts for use in public-private transactions would not be acceptable or desirable” to all state and local agencies. Therefore, the guide aims to serve “as an educational reference” for agencies looking to form public-private partnerships. The guide says that toll rates “are generally determined by an algorithm agreed upon by the [private entity] and the [government agency].” Further, the guide suggests that the private party should be subject to “little restriction” on setting toll rates because the private party often bears the risk of a drop in user demand. In practice, however, because toll road projects directly impact the public, private and public partners must compromise. In part, toll rates might depend on consumer demand because the private entity may rely on toll revenue to build, maintain, and expand the project in accordance with use. However, since toll rates can come under public scrutiny, like when commuters argue that the tolls adversely affect low-income drivers, the public entity should maintain some type of veto power over the toll rate, according to the guide. Additionally, the guide points out that the public entity may want to exempt certain vehicles from having to pay tolls. For example, lawmakers may wish to exempt ambulances, police cars, and fire trucks from toll fees. Or, they may want to promote fuel efficiency and traffic congestion relief by exempting commuter buses and taxis. Some states, like Florida and Georgia, have attempted to promote carpooling by providing registered carpool vehicles with a toll exemption or discount. The guide also states that public entities should generally reserve the right to suspend tolling collection, despite its impact on the private entity. During Hurricane Sandy, for example, region-wide tolls were suspended to speed up public evacuation. However, public entities were not liable for private toll revenue loss. That does not mean that public entities can always escape liability. In the Hurricane Sandy example, if the toll exemption covers other toll roads that are not similarly affected by the need for speedy evacuation, the public entity may be liable for the private entity’s toll revenue losses. Ensuring that public-private partnerships prioritize the public welfare requires a difficult balancing act. When allocating risk and reward, the guide states that toll road agreements must “leave enough incentive for the [private entity] to perform at the highest levels.” However, the guide also attempts to leave space for public partners to maintain certain rights to ensure that the public good—both specifically, as in the physical public road, and more generally, as in equal and just access to that road—is rightly delivered. While the guide provides a model for state and local governments considering public-private partnerships, exactly what those contracts should look like, and thus what the balancing act should entail, is a matter of debate. The debate about balancing interests is likely to permeate other sectors, as well. Public-private partnerships form in a range of critical public sectors around the world, such as water, waste management, and education, and are no stranger to critique. Recent research from the University of Toronto highlighted flaws in how governments assess the benefits of public-private projects as opposed to more conventional projects. Nevertheless, some scholars argue that the U.S. is fertile ground for an emerging public-private partnership market

When Politicians Are Not Experts, Agencies Step In

Members of Congress are not experts in everything. When preparing legislation in fields that require technical competence, they often call on relevant federal agencies for drafting assistance. Yet these requests can implicate separation of power concerns between the legislative and executive branches, forcing agency officials to walk a slippery slope in their response. The Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS), a federal agency dedicated to improving the work of other federal agencies, has taken up this issue and initiated a project to examine the role of agency officials in the legislative process. The project’s lead consultant, Christopher J. Walker, a professor at the Ohio State University Moritz College of Law, recently presented a draft report to ACUS recommending a series of best practices for agency legislative engagement. Based on a series of interviews and survey responses from agency officials, Walker found that agencies generally responded to every request for drafting assistance that they received from Congress—“regardless of the political party affiliation of the requesting Member, the effect the legislation would have on the agency, [or] the likelihood of such legislation actually being enacted.” Responding to these requests can strengthen an agency’s relationship with Congress as well as ensure that new legislation remains compatible with the agency’s existing mission. However, agencies do face problems when working with congressional requesters. Turnover of legislative staff and changes in party control of congressional committees diminishes the productivity of agency-Congress relationships and reduces congressional staff members’ knowledge of preexisting statutes and regulations, according to Walker’s report. In addition, agencies working with congressional requesters often must decipher whether the requesters want technical assistance or the agency’s position on the proposed legislation. Official articulations of executive agency positions require preclearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in the White House. Written official statements on pending bills, draft bills that an agency wishes to present to Congress, and other legislative activities all require preclearance. At the same time, White House preclearance is not required for legislative language that agencies offer to congressional committees as a “drafting service” provided that the agency makes clear that the administration or agency is not bound to the position espoused in the drafted language. But drawing the line between “drafting service” and other legislative efforts requiring preclearance is not always clear. Agencies perennially struggle with how to provide assistance requested without circumventing the OMB’s preclearance requirements. In his interviews, Walker found that most agency staff believe that “what congressional staffers really want is to know the agency’s substantive position on the proposed legislation.” Drawing the line between informal assistance and a formal position statement on a draft bill can put agencies in a difficult position. To combat these problems and improve the technical drafting assistance process generally, Walker identified a number of intra-agency and extra-agency best practices. His study’s recommendations are currently being considered for adoption by ACUS as a whole. One recommendation stresses the importance of keeping an agency’s legislative affairs staff “separate and distinct” from its legislative legal counsel. By keeping them separate, an agency can make day-to-day, politically sensitive decisions about Congress through its legislative affairs staff, while also providing non-partisan, expert assistance in the legislative process through its legislative counsel. Walker argues that this bifurcation can help alleviate—even if it does not completely eliminate—the slippery slope of agencies crossing the line into legislative work that requires preclearance. Since technical drafting assistance can also occur without the involvement of legislative affairs staff or legislative counsel, Walker also recommends that agencies implement official policies and procedures to govern relationships with congressional staffers. Having official guidelines for agency employees to follow helps coordinate technical drafting assistance efforts across the agency and identify situations requiring OMB involvement. Providing meaningful assistance without providing an official position requires meeting congressional requesters where they are. To that end, Walker highlights the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s practice of providing congressional requesters with so-called “Ramseyer/Cordon drafts.” These drafts serve as comparative analyses by redlining existing law to show the proposed legislation’s likely effect. This practice helps remind congressional requesters of existing law and to avoid unintended consequences. Walker also explores other plans to strengthen agency-Congress relationships so that all parties can better anticipate potential problems and proactively address them. Such plans include facilitating face-to-face meetings to build trust, offering in-person educational programs to keep congressional staffers informed of agency operations and initiatives, as well as organizing temporary working opportunities in Congress for interested agency personnel. Walker believes that such experiences diffuse insider knowledge throughout congressional and agency circles. ACUS recently held a committee meeting to discuss Walker’s report and his suggested recommendations. The next committee meeting will be held on October 22, 2015. ACUS is also currently accepting public comments on the report. Final consideration of Walker’s report and related recommendations is expected in December

New York City Considers a “Civil Gideon” for Housing Court

New York City may soon become the first city in the United States to provide free legal counsel to low-income tenants facing eviction. Can the city afford it? New York City Comptroller Scott Stringer, the city’s Chief Financial Officer, thinks it may be possible. Last week, he stood in support of Intro 214, the “Right to Counsel” bill. Citing statistics that nearly 30,000 New York City families were evicted from their homes in 2013, he argued that “more must be done to protect tenants.” Today, over 90 percent of tenants in New York City Housing Court do not have legal representation, while nearly 98 percent of landlords do. Tenants without legal representation reportedly receive warrants of eviction over four times more often than tenants with legal representation. If passed, the recent New York City proposal will create a new office, the “Civil Justice Coordinator,” that will provide the infrastructure necessary to provide legal services for eligible individuals in covered proceedings. Ultimately, this should lead to guaranteed access to legal counsel for low-income tenants in New York City facing eviction, ejectment, or foreclosure proceedings. Although the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Gideon v. Wainwright only requires state and local governments to provide effective legal representation in criminal cases, many activists today rally for a “civil Gideon,” or the right to counsel in noncriminal but high-stakes legal proceedings, such as housing eviction proceedings, child custody hearings, and civil domestic violence disputes. Before seriously debating the merits of the bill, New York City Council must first consider what it can afford. The city’s Independent Budget Office estimates that providing free legal counsel to eligible individuals — those with incomes at or below 125 percent of the federal poverty line who face eviction proceedings — will cost $173 million annually. However, another estimate by the New York City Council itself puts the cost at closer to$276 million a year. Whatever the correct figure, the price tag for a civil Gideon policy will be substantially higher than currently allocated to legal services for residents facing housing issues. Last year, the city only budgeted $20 million for free, anti-eviction legal services. However, the city budget office also recognizes that the civil Gideon proposal could bring in some savings. The office estimates that the bill will save the city$196 million a year in homeless shelter costs. Looking solely at city funds without state or federal grants, the budget office projects the bill will cost the city $100 million to$200 million annually. Council Members Mark Levine and Vanessa Gibson, the sponsors of the bill, complicate these numbers, claiming that the budget office did not take into account other savings in mental health services, unemployment benefits, and school busing costs. They believe that ultimately the bill will save the city money. In expressing his support for the bill, Comptroller Stringer sounds serious about finding the necessary funds. “We are certainly going to analyze the mayor’s preliminary budget plan to figure out ways to prioritize what the city can do to subsidize a right to counsel process,” he said recently. Comptroller Stringer’s statements arrive in the midst of New York City’s annual “budget dance.” From late January, when the mayor submits a preliminary budget, through the end of March, the City Council hosts a series of public hearings, formal reviews, and negotiation meetings on the city’s spending priorities. Activists claim that overlooked but important social programs — like after-school child care, library programs, and homeless support services — often suffer significant budget cuts by the end of the season. With budgets tight, some commentators contend that a civil Gideon is counterproductive. In another context, attorney and former fellow at the American Enterprise Institute Ted Frank argued that a civil Gideon will translate into a “tremendous cost to taxpayers,” “higher rents,” and “legal services that often will not help” those who need them anyway. He explained that “the honest poor will be worse off as a group.” In New York City, activists in support of the Right to Counsel bill assert otherwise. “It’s money well-spent, and a good way of approaching the problem,” argues Andrew Scherer, the Policy Director of the Impact Center for Public Interest Law at New York Law School. In addition, Susanna Blankley of Community Action for Safer Apartments in the Bronx claims that many tenants have legal claims that would lower their housing costs, such as eligibility for abatement due to lack of heat or hot water. If tenants lack legal advocates to fight on their behalf, they will too often pay housing costs “that they wouldn’t necessarily have to pay if they had a lawyer to defend them,” she adds. Housing issues are not restricted to New York City. Eviction rates continue to climb around the country, and the supply of affordable housing usually does not meet demand in most cities. When affordable housing is available, it usually can be found only in less desirable neighborhoods that have higher crime rates and lower quality public schools, and that are less accessible by public transit. Some housing advocates are optimistic about improving access to affordable housing around the country, claiming that “2015 is going to be the ‘Tipping Point’ year for civil Gideon in the United States.