Decision Maker

Linda Rosenthal

  • NY067
  • State Representative

Does Linda Rosenthal have the power to decide or influence something you want to change? Start a petition to this decision maker.Start a petition
Petitioning Andrew Cuomo, New York State Senate, John Flanagan, Carl Marcellino, Terrence Murphy, Thomas O'Mara, Simcha Felder, Ruben Diaz, Neil Breslin, James Tedisco, Jeffrey Klein, Linda Rosenthal, Brad Hoy...

Sign this petition. Protect 43,000 kids from sexual abuse

Do you worry about sex offenders teaching your children? Or coaching them? Or working in a daycare? Most people think sex offender registries and convictions protect their kids The problem is that 9 out of 10 sex offenders never get convicted, and never appear on sex abuse registries. Our criminal justice system fails victims, and statutes of limitation (SOL) on the child sex abuse keep most victims from pressing charges shortly after their 18th birthday. Researchers now know it takes victims, on average, 21 years to disclose their abuse. New York’s SOL on child sexual abuse bars most victims from the court on their 23rd birthday, which ensures most sex offenders stay off registries and around kids. The Child Victims Act lengthens New York’s SOL for this crime and gives older victims a chance to press charges in civil court. It’s a way to identify the predators who are lurking around children. Please, sign this petition and protect children from sexual abuse.

Stop Abuse Campaign
73,254 supporters
Petitioning Linda Rosenthal, Joseph Griffo

We Support New York's Anti-Declaw Bills A595 (Rosenthal) and S3376 (Griffo)

Thank you, New York Assemblymember Linda Rosenthal and Senator Joseph Griffo for introducing legislation that would prohibit onychectomy (or declawing) and tendonectomy in New York state. We support your New York Anti-Declaw Bills A595 and S3376, which would forbid declawing in the state of New York and provides for a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for violations of the law. Declawing is amputation, whether performed by scalpel, clippers, or laser. We believe there is never a reason to declaw for non-therapeutic reasons (that is, unless surgery were necessary to treat animals' medical conditions). Declawing does not keep cats in homes, a fact acknowledged by the American Animal Hospital Association (AAHA).  Declawing is illegal or considered unethical by the veterinary profession in most of the world.  Eight cities in California - Los Angeles, San Francisco, Burbank, Santa Monica, Berkeley, Beverly Hills, and Culver City - have enacted declaw bans.  Statistics from those cities indicate that the relinquishment of cats to shelters in those cities, in the years since the bans were enacted, has not increased - in fact, the number of cats dumped in shelters has DECREASED consistently in the many years since the laws went into effect. There is no reason to declaw cats to protect human health. The NIH, CDC, US Public Health Service, the Infectious Diseases Society of America, and the Canadian Medical Association, all have specifically stated that the declawing is "not advised," even for the animals of persons who are severely immunocompromised, including those with HIV. This opinion is echoed in statements on declawing published by the AAHA and the American Association of Feline Practitioners (AAFP). Declaw-type procedures to treat tumor, infection, disease, or injury would be allowed to benefit the health of the cat. Thank you, Assemblymember Rosenthal and Senator Griffo. We hope your bills will be successful and will be models for humane legislation in other states. These bills have been re-introduced by the authors. The previous bill numbers in earlier sessions were A1297 and S5084.

The Paw Project
5,836 supporters
Petitioning Gale Brewer (Manhattan Borough President)

Save Theodore Roosevelt Park

Theodore Roosevelt Park is an integral part of the Upper West Side neighborhood that surrounds the American Museum of Natural History. The Park is populated with children playing, people reading, neighbors conversing and residents exercising and commuting.  Its mature trees and lush gardens provide a sanctuary from the busy streets.  The museum proposes to expand its footprint into the West 79th Street section of the Park, removing trees, plantings and an important gathering spot for the neighborhood.  The lush Park would become a giant building! Save our Park!  Once it is gone,we will NEVER get it back!

Defenders of Teddy Roosevelt Park -
2,708 supporters
Victory
Petitioning Scott Stringer

Michael Bloomberg, Dennis Walcott, Scott Stringer, Gale Brewer: Stop the redevelopment plans for the Museum Magnet School/P.S.191

Building a high-rise will negatively affect the lives of the community residents, particularly in the Amsterdam Houses, as well as negatively affect the Museum Magnet School students and staff. We are strongly opposed to this development plan because we believe it will negatively affect the quality and cohesiveness of instruction at the Museum Magnet School, and will displace our school children. We are dismayed that there has been a lack of effort on the part of the DOE and the ECF to allow the community to be involved and educated in this process.

Museum Magnet School/P.S.191
1,008 supporters
Petitioning New York Governor

Replace Property Tax with Ground Rent

Governor Cuomo’s property tax cap sets the cap at the rate of inflation or 2%, whichever is less; prohibits any property tax levy above the cap unless endorsed by both by the local governing board and a 60% electoral majority, and provides only limited exceptions such as extraordinary legal or capital expenditures. Whether it is a tax cap or a circuit-breaker that several “progressive” organizations like the unions are proposing, neither is a sound policy. What makes sense to those who understand land economics is to shift the tax off improvements and onto land.  This would tend to lower the tax for most homeowners and shift the burden to underused parcels (e.g., vacant lots, derelict buildings, and land containing unexploited natural resources).  For those homeowners who do own property and are hard-pressed to pay, there is another option, called deferral, wherein the Ground Rent (aka: Land Value Tax) would only be collected upon sale of the property.  Arbitrarily capping the property tax will be a disaster equal to that of proposition 13 in California, which single-handedly brought down the most prosperous state, while providing taxless windfalls for large landholders like the oil & gas industry.  Furthermore, a cap on taxes forces up prices, and promotes sprawl while taking away funding for education.  Ideally, we should only pay a Land Value Tax, and no tax on buildings or other improvements.  For more information, please see www.urbantools.org and www.commongroundnyc.org. Our proposal is to eliminate taxes on all productive activity, charge 8%/year on assessed values of Land instead.  Then, the state will free up underused land (22 square miles in NYC alone!) for productive purposes, end the land speculation that is responsible for the current economic crisis, and produce more affordable housing.  This revenue-neutral proposal will attract new businesses and prevent flight of existing businesses. On behalf of all New Yorkers and not just the special Land-holding speculators, please enact a Land Value Tax, and repeal the property tax cap.  

Scott Baker
192 supporters
Michael Bloomberg, Dennis Walcott, Scott Stringer, Gale Brewer: Stop the redevelopment plans for the Museum Magnet School/P.S.191

Dear Constituent: Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition to redevelopment of P.S. 191, the Museum Magnet School. I share your concerns about the impacts of the proposed development on the school and the surrounding community and the decision by the New York City Department of Education (DOE) to develop this plan in secret. It has been more than three months since the DOE closed the Request for Expressions of Interest for development at P.S. 191, P.S. 199 and the School of Cooperative Technology on the Upper East Side, and yet the DOE has still not given any indication of how or whether it will solicit and incorporate community feedback into its decision process. I have written two letters to Chancellor Dennis Walcott to express my strong opposition to the DOE’s lack of public process or consideration of parent and community feedback, and to demand answers detailed answers to questions about the proposed development. I am still awaiting a reply to these letters, which are included below. As many of you know, I also worked with P.S. 191 and the Amsterdam Houses Residents Association to organize a meeting of members of both communities to discuss the proposed development, and I continue to work with this coalition. I have also introduced legislation to ensure that the DOE does not give away public land to developers to create luxury housing without the public having an instrumental role in all decisions. I am inspired by your advocacy and am proud to stand with you. Signing this petition, however, is only the first step, and I will continue to work with you to make sure that your voice is heard by the DOE. If you are interested in additional steps you can take or if you have questions about this or any other issue, please do not hesitate to contact me at (212) 873-6368 or rosenthall@assembly.state.ny.us. Thank you again for contacting my office. Sincerely, Linda B. Rosenthal Member of Assembly – 67 AD ------------------------------------ March 5, 2013 Dennis Walcott Chancellor New York City Department of Education 52 Chambers Street New York, NY 10007 Dear Chancellor Walcott: I am writing regarding proposed development in my district in Manhattan at P.S. 199 and P.S. 191. Like many parents and neighbors, I was outraged when I learned that the New York City Department of Education (DOE) began looking for developers to potentially demolish and build on the sites of Manhattan's P.S. 199 and/or P.S. 191 without first consulting the community. Only after a parent found a Request for Expressions of Interest (RFEI) for developers in a November 2012 issue of Crain’s did DOE even acknowledge it was considering development. DOE and the New York City Educational Construction Fund (ECF) not only failed to notify any stakeholders before publishing the RFEI, but then waited nearly three months after its publication to present the potential development to the Parents Associations of the schools and to the Community Education Council (CEC). Countless numbers of constituents have contacted me since learning about the proposed development with serious concerns about the strain that runaway development has already placed on City infrastructure, the impacts of ongoing construction near both schools on neighbors’ quality of life and many questions about plans for the displaced students' education. It is unfortunate, although not shocking, that DOE and ECF decided not to solicit input before putting forward a proposal in the RFEI which includes 420-foot tall buildings in all versions of the potential development at either site. These residential towers will only add to the ever-growing demand for school seats even as DOE says it will expand the schools. By attempting to hide its plans from the community and waiting so long to present the proposed development, the DOE has created an antagonistic process and deceitful atmosphere from the start. While ECF’s Executive Director, Jamie Smarr, expressed DOE and ECF’s intention to pursue a special permit through the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP) if a developer is chosen, there was no commitment to a similar public process if DOE opts to build within what the zoning for the buildings allows. This would essentially mean that the only way for the community to have an opportunity to express its concerns through a public process would be if DOE and ECF decide to obtain a zoning waiver to build a larger building, even though one of the primary concerns of my constituents is the impact of the proposed development, which is only exacerbated the larger it gets. From the DOE to the New York City Housing Authority, there has been a disturbing trend of putting public land up for grabs by private developers without discerning if this is in the best interest of the community. A presentation to the CEC is a good start, even if it was by someone who left his position with ECF the same week, but DOE must commit not only to a public process whether the special permit or the as-of-right scheme is chosen, but also to ensuring that no development will move forward until the concerns of the parents and of the community at large have been addressed. I strongly urge DOE to be far more open and transparent about this process than it has been in the past, and I will vigilantly work to ensure that any final proposal is fully inclusive of community needs. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Linda B. Rosenthal Member of Assembly – 67 AD ----------------- April 23, 2013 Dennis Walcott Chancellor New York City Department of Education 52 Chambers Street New York, NY 10007 Lorraine Grillo President & Chief Executive Officer New York City School Construction Authority 30-30 Thompson Avenue Long Island City, NY 11101 Jennifer Maldonado Executive Director New York City Educational Construction Fund 30-30 Thompson Avenue, 4th Floor Long Island City, NY 11101 Dear Chancellor Walcott, Ms. Grillo and Ms. Maldonado: I am writing once again regarding the potential demolition and redevelopment of P.S. 199 and/or P.S. 191 in my district in Manhattan. As you are well aware, I, along with other area elected officials, parents and concerned residents have written to you previously expressing deep concern with the proposed development and with the New York City Department of Education’s (DOE) secretive approach to the entire process. After the Request for Expressions of Interest (RFEI) was discovered by a parent—rather than publicly announced by the DOE—the first step should have been the creation of an open and public process so that community concerns could not only be heard, but incorporated into any DOE plans. The community has expressed alarm at the proposed development plans, and the paucity of details from the DOE about the timeline and the means for public input has increased confusion and trepidation among residents. Parents received just one limited presentation from Jamie Smarr, former Executive Director of the Educational Construction Fund, during his last week on the job and months after the RFEI was discovered with no word even on which developers responded. It has been more than three months since the RFEI was closed, and yet the DOE has so far given no indication of how or whether it will solicit and incorporate community feedback into its decision process. The level and intensity of public outcry after the revelation that the DOE had released the RFEI without informing the public speaks not only to the controversial nature of giving away public land to private developers in an already over-developed community, but also to the community’s frustration with a DOE that has consistently shown a blatant disregard for public input and public process. The community deserves clear information now, and I therefore request written answers to the following questions: 1. What is the DOE’s anticipated timeline for making a decision on the RFEI and issuing a Request for Proposals? 2. How many developers responded to the RFEI for each of the three sites? Which developers responded to RFEI? 3. Is the DOE considering developing on one of these sites or both of these sites? 4. When will the DOE make a determination on whether to pursue development at these sites? 5. Will the DOE engage parents with an open and public process throughout the development of any plans for the schools, starting with a forum devoted specifically to the RFEI before a decision is made, so that parent and community concerns can be considered before DOE decides whether or not to pursue development? 6. If a site is chosen for development, will the DOE guarantee that the school’s temporary relocation site be located within the school’s zone or catchment area? 7. Have the developers who responded to the RFEI identified potential relocation sites for the schools? If so, which sites were identified? 8. If a site is chosen for development, will the DOE commit to a binding public process, such as the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP), for the entirety of the development, rather than solely the portion of the development which requires a special permit? 9. If a site is chosen for development, will DOE require that any residential development on the site be fully or majority permanent affordable housing, rather than the bare minimum of 20% of apartments as required for City and State financial incentives? I look forward to your response. Sincerely, Linda B. Rosenthal Member of Assembly – 67 AD

5 years ago