City Council - Regular Meeting

What ends up happening is people get shot in the street and we can't allow that to happen here. I'd like to wrap up my public comment by just congratulating city council for passing their proactive code legislation. I'm extremely proud of what the city has done and chosen to do as far as proactive code and I look forward to seeing that play out, thank you.

Hey, it's John. Nice turnout tonight. That's always good to see. Got to get rid of the flock cameras. If you can't do that, then you can't do anything. The mayor was on the radio, you know. These aren't like other flock cameras. Our cameras aren't like other flock cameras. The last time I heard that was during the Chinese spy thing, when Binghamton University, our Chinese programs are cultural, they're not spies, and then they were gone. So, He says, a chain of custody. Now, Los Angeles has no problem getting rid of fly. 82, 82 communities in this. Now, this is hard. I just want to imagine something. Speaking of political suicide, I want to see you guys go around with your cards and knock on people's doors and say, I support the flock cameras. We don't have enough snooping in Binghamton. I think you'll be gone. So it's, and then he says, well, private, the mayor, Jared Junior there, he says, the private companies do it. They have license plate readers, you know. Well, that's the private company's business. We have enough spying. Community policing, by the way, that came from England. It failed in England. They sit and watch TV screens all day, and then when somebody gets a machete out and chops somebody's head off, they say, well, we should send a unit over there and see what's happening. So if you want to see something ridiculous, look at the video. It's on my site, BinghamtonDaily.x, or at the IDA site. And you'll see your government at work. And you'll see how hostile people are. The IDA, of course, got caught red-handed. $40,000, $50,000, self-enrichment, using credit cards for personal expenditure. Look at those meetings. Everybody should look at those meetings and see. All of a sudden, I show up, and I'm the only guy that shows up. And they got new rules for speaking. But guess what? They didn't vote on it. They were trying to get it done. So I mean, just see it, and you'll see how bad, and I had a neutral opinion on these people that are on the board now. But I'll tell you what, they're bad people. And I think that if you go to this, watch those meetings, you'll see just how bad they are. And they got a big, big project planned for the city. And beware of anything that's in phases. because there's still phases of urban renewal from 1965. One of them is that empty lot by the courthouse. Somebody came in with artist's renderings, said Starbucks is coming. So this city's got big problems, and one of the things you gotta ask yourself is, forget about political points of view for a second. Forget about political parties. Is it working? Are we doing things better than we did last year, two years ago, five years ago? And one of the things that this county did is it buried the indigent. It buried the indigent. And I was to a couple of funerals like that. And they had a showing and, you know, the casket is like egg crates or something. But some kids that died in the river, I went to their funeral. And you could follow the county on a lot of things, but it buried its dead. And it doesn't do that anymore. It puts people in trailers, in air conditioned trailers. It takes vets. There's a guy They took his body over there. He was with General Eisenhower. He was General Eisenhower's personal driver. Tragic, in a fire. And they got his body stored there. And they got somebody making money on a trailer to store bodies. So, you know, and now they wanna have another request, supposedly. So you gotta ask yourself, why did the other county executives, why could they bury the dead And this administration can't bury the dead, right? So it's just, because if we.

You have just under a minute left. One minute? Mm-hmm.

Okay.

One of the things I would consider is naming this chamber after my friend Sheila Keating, schoolmate, who was a city clerk for a brief time, but she worked for the city, I think, from high school on. And she was a very, very nice person and a good person. And, you know, if you're going to name it, name this place for somebody, name it for somebody that essentially gave their working career to the city. And let's see, what else do I wanna say? I wish you well, but keep in mind, time's a-wasting, and you gotta get something done. And I told you this before, I can live under any system, except the system of incompetence, and I can't live under that, and we've suffered enough, and our time of suffering should be mitigated, and we should go to citizen heaven, where everything is, well, that Lake, well, I was gonna use Lake Wabagon, but that guy's, that was the only program I enjoyed, and the guy's discredited, what can you do?

Oh, hello, my name is Rich McGrew. I live in downtown Binghamton. I'm a member of the local DSA chapter, which is part of the local Coalition Against Flock and Mass Surveillance. I will get straight to the point. The New York State Constitution, Article I, Section 12, reads as follows. Security against unreasonable searches, seizures, and interceptions. Section 12, the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. The right of the people to be secure against unreasonable interception of telephone or telegraph communications shall not be violated and ex parte orders or warrants shall issue only upon oath or affirmation that there is reasonable ground to believe that evidence of crime may be thus obtained and identifying the particular means of communication and particularly describing the person or persons whose communications are to be intercepted and the purpose thereof. This was adopted by the New York State Constitutional Convention of 1938 and approved by vote of the people November 8, 1938. This language in our state constitution clearly prohibits all mass surveillance camera systems that do not have warrants and do not meet the legal standard of probable cause. Simply put, automated license plate readers, or ALPRs for short, as well as cameras that track people in public areas such as sidewalks or parks or the lawn in front of our county courthouse are plainly illegal under the text of our state constitution. The city is currently in violation of the New York state constitution by the presence of these unconstitutional surveillance camera systems, as are many other jurisdictions in our area and the state as a whole, likewise currently in violation. This is not a debatable policy question as whether or not to allow AI data centers inside city limits. This is legally mandated by our state constitution. The legal remedy for this is for the city of Binghamton in a reasonable and timely manner, allowing for the text of a law to be well crafted and agreed upon to pass legislation outlawing any and all such surveillance camera systems to bring the city into compliance with our state constitution. Any failure to do so could put the city in legal risk of civil litigation from people tracked by these systems if they suffer any damages, which could be costly to the city budget and local taxpayers. There are many far better uses of limited city funds than unconstitutional surveillance. I look forward to your cooperation in this matter. Thank you very much.

Good evening. My name is Rachel Compton. I'm a resident of Endicott, a BU alum, and a trustee at a church here in Binghamton. And I'm a consumer who frequents Binghamton businesses. If ALPR were the only concern, that would be enough. The city may not care about the growing amount of litigation against the corporations that provide the equipment and services, but it is in the city's interest to keep in mind lawsuits against the municipalities that engage these services. Lawsuits that are targeting mass surveillance and Fourth Amendment challenges, illegal data sharing and corporate privacy actions, and wrongful detention and arrest lawsuits, some of which have ended in hefty settlements against their municipalities from tens of thousands to millions. Some of these are due to errors made by the technology. Others are from the abuse of these systems. Abuse is typically what is called when the system is used for purposes that do not align with the law. What happens when the law changes though? Maybe not locally, but in a jurisdiction other than the state. or other than the city, I want to know what happens when the law officially labels me a trans ideologically informed violent extremist, like the Heritage Foundation would like. It's not like their preferences haven't informed federal policy in the past. It's not like this administration has not been fearmongering the American people regarding the existence of trans folks like myself. What happens when our county sheriff is happy to enforce the law? What happens when the city does not have control over the data? Because out there in the cloud, no one really has control of the data. We are all under the flimsy policies and corporate strategies from serious abuse. Cameras that are used to collect the data to read license plates, data that is then compiled and fed through algorithms, can be used to track anything really. Flock says they do not currently process the collected data to read biometric markers to track individuals, who can say if that's even right, but this is nothing more than a corporate strategy. Corporate strategies change on a dime, so don't mergers, especially in this market where volatility is the strategy. The risk calculation on this technology does not favor the people. It is another encroachment on our privacy. Please do not renew the flock contract and please prohibit the use of ALPR and other AI enhanced tracking in the city of Binghamton. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Arusha Ramaswamy. I'm a Binghamton resident and a BU student. And I think there's a very common idea that the more cameras there are, the more secure a place is. And I think that it has been demonstrated all over the country that this is true. This is not true. This is, in fact, the exact inverse of what is happening. Flock cameras are not only being met with lawsuits across the country, not just flock, but all forms of surveillance are being met with it. But not only that, they are being used to target the most vulnerable people and the most vulnerable only. It is the city council's responsibility to protect the residents of Binghamton, all residents of Binghamton. It is not protection that we are constantly being watched, we are constantly being surveilled, that that would never be protection. We are supposed to be innocent until we are proven guilty, not constantly watched until they find something to make us guilty about. Other people have already gone more into specifics about the legal challenges being met with blocks, so I won't do that here, but I would like to say that a lot of people on the city council have been voted in because you ran on campaigns of prioritizing the people who have not been prioritized. And I and everyone here is asking you to do that right now. Prioritize the people of Binghamton. Prioritize the fact that no one wants Flock. No one wants surveillance. And stand on what people voted you in for and do not renew any contract with Flock or and do not renew any contract with Flock. Get them out of Binghamton.

Good evening, I'm Pat Noble, a licensed clinical social worker, and I have a private practice office, just multiple cameras down the street and around the corner from here. I was here last month to comment on Flock, and I'd like to make some follow-up comments on that. So I'd like to expand the comment about the distress the use of flock surveillance is generating in the community. And I want to start by quoting the aspiration the preamble to our Constitution expresses. to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our prosperity. The Bill of Rights and the 17 amendments that follow are to ensure the well-being of the populace. and particularly the Fourth Amendment, the right of people to be secure in their persons. The founders were really particular in their language, like anyone that has studied the history of the formulation of the Constitution, that it got pretty heated at times. So the language was really important. So the founders, They didn't say around their persons, about their persons, they said in their persons. And in 2025, last year, the journal Systems published a paper entitled Surveillance as a Sociotechnical System. And the researchers found that, and I quote, the normalization of surveillance in contemporary societies creates a culture of suspicion. What I found really interesting is that this paper came out of Romania. which for a period of time was occupied by the Soviet Union and had a dictatorship of which surveillance was part of the governance. So how does spying on each other ensure domestic tranquility in Binghamton? Indiscriminate surveillance sends the message, intended or not, of guilty until proven innocent. We are essentially criminalizing each other without cause. Where is the tranquility, the sense of well-being, when we are being held suspect of something nefarious Now or someday. And that's just not for myself, people in the gallery, but also everyone in this room. We go past those cameras. I would say on a regular basis and not necessarily flock. It leads me out to the next question. Where is the trust? How can we trust that justice will be served by having an electronic brain full of data and metadata for times just in case? And an aside here, if you read the terms and conditions on the flock website, it's full of the word data. I don't know. I can't find the word metadata. What happens to that? I can't find it, right? And there's a big loophole when it comes to signing contracts. So justice is not justice if unaccompanied by positive regard of the community. How can we trust those that have been selected to take on the work of governance on behalf of those who live, work, or visit the city of Binghamton to protect and safeguard the right and opportunity of all persons to be free from discrimination when indiscriminate surveillance is being increasingly rationalized and normalized?

You have about one minute left. Pardon? You have about one minute left. Oh, thanks.

There's so much happening here in the world, and we're all on edge to whatever degree. So again, I put to you the council. Do you want to govern out of fear and distrust? Or do you desire to lead with positive regard and trust in the community you have been elected to serve? Trust is a choice that can be made harder or easier depending on the perceived trustworthiness of the other. I still choose positive regard and trust in this council's integrity and intent to serve the public good. I trust that you will not renew the contract with Flock Safety in order to preserve and care for the safety, health, comfort, and general welfare of those of us who live, work, and visit the city. And I thank you all for listening.

Hello, my name is Oakley Bilella. I am a student here, but I also live in Binghamton. I just wanna say it's very wonderful to hear so many passionate opinions that I agree with about this. I would just like to say something very short. I believe that we don't need more surveillance. I think our communities need more support I'd also like to say that this county needs to show more empathy towards our houseless neighbors. And again, we don't need more surveillance. Our communities need more support.

Thank you. Hi, my name is Ellen Miller. And I lived in the first ward for seven years. I'm now living in Endicott. And thank you for this opportunity. In George Orwell's well-known dystopian book in 1984, the people had no choice but to live under mass surveillance state and living with constant paranoia and fear of their actions being interpreted as thought crimes. Today in Binghamton, for now at least, we still have that choice. In America, we have the Fourth Amendment, and it was read before, but the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and their effects against reasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. Violating my Fourth Amendment rights because someone else has committed a crime doesn't mean that I should lose my right to privacy. Flock safety cameras, the data that they're collecting is being used without our permission, and this moves Binghamton closer to becoming a surveillance state. I'm speaking here today to protect our rights to privacy and our data from being misused by the flock cameras. Please join with other communities in stopping flock safety from invading our privacy and stealing our data. Thank you.

Hi. My name's Travis. I'm kind of a local activist here. I've canvassed for a few of you, actually, so it's good to see you again. But yeah, I just want to echo the kinds of demands that we've heard from the others, the ALPRs, automated license plate readers. Flock is the most glaring example, the most notable example, but this extends even beyond that. It's one of the largest invasions of privacy really perhaps ever in the history of the world. I mean, the way that they're able to utilize AI to track and trace virtually anybody that is caught on the camera and put it onto a central database that's accessible to law enforcement agencies across the entire country that have a contract with Glock is kind of frightening, right? So in theory, police officers all the way in Hawaii could access some of the footage obtained here in Binghamton. And I know that a lot of people here are concerned with ICE as well, and we have to kind of address that and the ways that, you know, ICE doesn't have a direct contract with FLOC, but they do collaborate with law enforcement agencies that do, and they're able to inquire those agencies for some of that footage. And it's not a large leap of logic to assume that they're able to do that even here in Binghamton with some of the recent rates that we've seen that are done with very accurate, almost inhuman precision in some instances. I think that has to be taken into account. And another aspect of these cameras that are really troubling to me, because this isn't just science fiction, we see it now, we see it in practice, we've seen the instances of police officers using this footage to stalk their exes, for example, or their ex's new partners, or even people who are not accused of actually committing a crime, but they have some sort of vendetta against them, they keep an eye on them. And what AI does, what these automated license plate readers, for example, do is they're able to exacerbate the issue of surveillance to heights that are unprecedented. We've had surveillance in this country pretty much from the beginning in one form or another. We saw this during the Civil Rights Movement. Imagine if the FBI at that time had access to the technology that we see today. And are we supposed to be led to believe that law enforcement and FBI today are much more wise? and much more considerate about the usage of these surveillance systems that they are in our best of interest or that they won't be abused. I would argue no, personally. And also, essentially what this leads to is with these AI-powered systems, they're able to, as I said, increase surveillance to a height that's unprecedented, spearheaded by imperfect people enforcing imperfect laws. And this increases a terrible amount of risk for us all because are they so infallible that they can be trusted with that level of power and that amount of data obtained about all of us, whether we're considered criminals or not. Everybody that crosses that camera is now a part of that system. I hope that you take these kind of warnings into consideration. Don't renew the contract with Flock and take into consideration a ban, as you will, of all these automated license plate readers because they do serve as a sort of existential threat to all of us regardless of our backgrounds or what organization we're a part of or even our political leanings. You know, this is something that has historically and is today being abused. And I hope you take that into consideration and yeah, thank you very much.

Good evening. My name is Adam Nestro. I've lived on West Side for five years, and I'm here to speak about the flock cameras as well. Commonly, people say to rebut issues of privacy. If you have nothing to hide, why are you afraid? But during this time, the United States government is becoming more and more hostile to minorities, including people of color, immigrants and refugees, women and pregnant people, and the queer and trans community. All of these issues have to do with privacy. If you're reducing privacy, you're actively reducing these people's safety. I'm a member of the transgender community. All my friends are hoarding vials of estrogen and testosterone. They are hiding in their jobs and not using their real names or preferred pronouns because they're afraid that they might lose their jobs. We're making plans about if we're to move abroad if things get worse in New York State. Eroding privacy is incredibly dangerous because privacy is one of the most important barriers to be able to have civil rights and civil liberties. I worry that if I don't have privacy that the government will look at my documents and see that I'm a trans individual and that's unsafe. I don't have anything to hide right now, but the state of the government and the state of the laws make me feel like I have to hide. And so for this reason, I speak against the flock cameras and further surveillance state technology in Binghamton. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Sam from Binghamton. I am speaking as a representative of humanity because I think that that's something this room is heavily lacking, and although the topic today is flock, I'm going to pivot in the only way I know how, and A lot has been said today about automation and I think that this whole process sitting at these tables is a prime example of humans replicating automation rather than getting things done. I've had friends who You know, I'm not friendly with a lot of politicians to be honest. They've let me down. The last time that I spoke in this room, it was made a very uncomfortable experience for me. And, you know, maybe I don't always articulate my point as well as I could. And at the end of this, I'll make my stance on flock known because I don't write stuff down. I don't. I just have to say what I feel. And I had to come here today. And I'd like to commend the people in this room at this table who have gone outside and visited the encampment. There have been a couple representatives who have been seen down there. But I don't minimize what people here do for the homeless community. So don't minimize what's going on outside. I've heard conservatives say that what's happening outside is not an encampment, it's a protest, it's an act. And I've had liberals say that is not an encampment, it's a protest. Excuse me. I think I spoonerized that. Conservatives saying that it is an encampment, not a protest, and liberals vice versa. And if they left out the negation, then they would probably be correct without saying the wrong parts. while saying things that are inaccurate have both proven each other wrong. I see people down there living there. I've seen with my own two eyes. There are people living outside on Holly Street, and I believe that they are safer together than they would be otherwise. And if people could show the humanity to at least not be afraid to mingle with those people, You know, you don't have to talk to everyone down there, but get in touch with the community because there's a divide that has not allowed people to actually get to know the folks down at the encampment. There are all types of people down there. There are homeless people that may have harmed people, may have harmed others. I don't wish suffering on any of them. I think they all deserve humanity. And maybe later I'll go bother Jason Garner about it tomorrow, but I'm just going to conclude this by saying I think that as representatives Some of you need to do better at actually knowing these people. And I do not support flock. I think it should flock to the bottom of the ocean. Thank you.

Oh, man.

How y'all doing tonight? Robert, how are you? Kenya, how are you? I see we're missing two members. Nate, how are you? Kinda okay, yeah. Hadassah, I don't think that I've met you before. How are you? Rebecca, how are you? Fine, okay, beautiful. I actually had to write something because I don't wanna come off as disrespectful or intimidating as our county executive made this assertion that somehow people were bullying someone. but i'm here to dispel the rumors and i'm also here as an independent community member which many of you know and you know the work that i do and you know that i'm not connected with any sort of the things that you've all been connected with in terms of housing outreach or some of those other very important topics right so i wrote this because I wrote it actually while I was sitting right there because I was thinking what I needed to say. So my name is Thomas Gray and I'm a lifelong resident of Binghamton. I was very excited to see this city council come to fruition as I supported each and every one of you. Truly. It was my idea that having a democratic city council in the midst of such a long Republican administration would give a sense of checks and balances. You know what I mean? I personally know many of you, so it was my view that the right thing would be done through and through. But I'm here tonight because I'm not so sure that that is the case. Over the past few weeks, I've learned more than I ever knew about our houseless population here locally and what they go through on a day-to-day basis. Now I know tonight's meeting is about ending mass surveillance, so I'm hopeful that maybe there will be some redemption for you all, and you'll make the right decision on the community's behalf. I feel like y'all have it in the pocket. Robert, you give me a little bit of a vibe that you might vote against this, so do the right thing, buddy. But because the lack of solidarity that I've seen from our Democratic City Council over the past three weeks has been overwhelming and made me frustrated, specifically comments made about what has been happening outside of this building in response to the Knights in Fire, an absolute tragedy, as I'm sure everyone agrees. to know that two of you specifically who campaigned on housing justice and know about housing outreach, excuse me, because it was supposed to be your bread and butter I met you during my time with Wyoming Conference, and you shared with me all that you wanted to do to help people, and so I put a lot of stock in you, Rebecca. And you as well, Nate. I've seen you campaign on caring about these things, but I've seen you absent, And I've seen you silent until you decide to make a comment, Rebecca, that it wasn't an encampment and that it was an occupation because there were not houseless people there when there's supposed to be a moratorium on encampment sweeps, a pause. And for three reasons only, may those encampments be swept. And none of those three reasons have been present outside. So instead of you protecting the most vulnerable and most marginalized people in our community, You centered yourself and used your ego to put us all at risk because you don't like Masai Andrews. It's disgusting. It is absolutely disgusting what people will do to center themselves and use their own ego. And so while those people are outside being served, when you've done this work and you should know exactly what this work is about, I ask, what will you do to demand accountability and bring an end to the political corruption that we all are experiencing? Maybe you can not renew this contract so that some of that money can be given directly to the people that need it and to reinstate some of these services that have been cut. So I went off topic there, you know, kind of like our president does when he stops reading the teleprompter. But this is my right to be able to speak this to you and look in your face and call you out for the cowardice that you've shown. So it seems you've not only turned your back on people like me, but on the most marginalized and vulnerable members of our society. And that makes me very sad because the last thing I want to do is come into this building and sit within these corrupt ass walls. That is why you all have been elected to represent and protect us. And to many in the community right now, that is not what it feels like.

You have just under 30 seconds left.

To hear Jason Garner and Rebecca Rathmel team up on members of our community that they were elected to protect, to see the absence of all the rest of you, to learn about the organizations that were afraid to send their folks out to bring services and meet the people where they are at, it really makes me sad to think that the people who have a background in this work let their egos get the best of them while they parrot listening to black women, while disrespecting Sana Andrews and Glory Shines and all the other beautiful black women doing this work.

Good evening. My name is Paul Goldschmidt. I am a resident of the city of Binghamton, and I have some things to say about the plot cameras that are scattered all over town as we speak. When I was in elementary school, my teachers told me and my classmates about a terrible place, a place where no one had any right to privacy at all. The name of that place was the Soviet Union. Today, tech companies are trying to sell us something dangerously similar to what they had in the Soviet Union, and they're telling us that it's for our own good. Profits and lobbying more and more localities to purchase his firm's products and services appear to be Phlox CEO Garrett Langley's two biggest priorities. One of the selling points he made for his Phlox safety cameras is that people behave differently when they are being watched. He's absolutely right. Just ask any prison guard. And it just so happens that the AI-powered surveillance cameras under discussion tonight are not infallible. There have been horror stories about people being wrongly pulled over and arrested simply because the AI which operates those devices thought they were somebody else. Other reports tell of rogue police officers misusing the cameras to stalk ex-wives. And it's also been pointed out that the cameras are quite easy to hack. How much of our personal data is now on the dark web because of those so-called security devices? In short, the negatives far outweigh the positives as far as flock safety cameras and similar devices are concerned. They have no place in any society that wants to call itself free. Thank you. Hi there.

My name's Nina Hyatt and I live town of Binghamton just across the border from the city limits. So I kind of consider myself a city of Binghamton resident. And Yeah, I want to just amplify all of the messages that we've heard already tonight. We're all feeling really, really on edge about being surveilled by our government without our consent. So I took a moment today to write up what kind of sounds like a, I don't know, an official kind of document maybe. But before I start, how many of you ever read 1984 in high school? Anybody read George Orwell? No? Oh my gosh, you really should read that book. This is what he warned us about. It's a very, very important read. So, whereas the citizens of this city never voted or agreed to pay for and install mass surveillance cameras to be used against ourselves and our neighbors, whereas there are zero safeguards in place to protect the access and use of this footage and data by literally anyone anywhere across the globe with a modicum of knowledge of technology, Whereas this automated license reader technology has been used by individuals seeking to maliciously stalk women generally, but also those seeking lifesaving health care across state lines. Whereas this technology has been shown to be used to stalk immigrants and other vulnerable communities, leading to horrific outcomes for individuals, families, and communities. Whereas there is nothing whatsoever in place to prevent the use of this technology in our society now or forever in the future by entities with abjectly malicious intentions. Whereas the use of this technology is patently illegal under our Constitution as it is a clear violation of our Fourth Amendment protection from warrantless surveillance, search, and or seizure. Whereas we the people are the class protected from this blatant unconstitutional abuse and violation at the hands of our government under the Fourth Amendment. Whereas you, as elected representatives in our local government, are required by law to protect and prevent the people whom you serve, who elected you, from such extreme violations of our rights under the Constitution. We hereby demand that you, as our local elected officials, carry out your responsibility to protect the letter of the law and terminate all contracts with all corporate surveillance entities that violate these, the most sacred and most basic principles of our shared Constitution. Thank you.

Hello, I'm Kat McGoldrick. I grew up in the Binghamton area, and I moved back. I'm in Johnson City, just over the Binghamton-Johnson City border, but I work in Binghamton. I'm here to speak about the flock cameras. META workers have, like very recently META workers have filed a lawsuit alleging META used AI to target workers with medical conditions for layoffs. This includes those who took medical or parental leave. Given the detrimental tolls, The stress of surveillance takes on our mental and physical health that was mentioned earlier, allowing flock cameras or any surveillance, AI or not, in our community is inflicting harm not only to our mental and physical safety, but putting our ability to earn a living and provide for our families at risk, I'm asking that you guys do what's right for our community, you guys included, your loved ones, everyone you care about, anyone who has a job. This stuff is not just criminals, it's everyone, and even criminals have rights. Do what's right for our community and end the use of Flock or any AI surveillance in our community. And I just wanna leave you guys with this quote from IBM from 1979 that says, a computer can never be held accountable, therefore a computer must never make a management decision. Thank you for your time.

I think you know some of me. I think some of you know me. I'm Brad. I'm not a resident of Binghamton. I'm from Windsor, but I frequent Binghamton very often. This issue is very important to me. I'm exhausted. I'm exhausted fighting this, to be honest. It's so clear in my mind what the correct answer of what we should do right now is. I decided to come up after her last comment about IBM. This area is very well known for computers, right? There's a little known history of IBM that they actually collaborated to label those who go into concentration camps in Nazi Germany. That's a part of our history too. They had offices in Germany. So Germany, after they lost all credibility for what happened back then, they learned what it was to centralize information. Data collection is power. That's the same thing that's going on here right now. It doesn't matter what political affiliation, it does not have any type of, it does not have any concern over your beliefs. It might not be your group right now, but it could be in the future, because power changes. Instrumentarian power changes. That's what Harvard professor Zuboff is warning us right now. Germany has led the fight since the 70s on this issue. They have this document in their opinion called the General Data Protection Regulation. They're against surveillance for sure because they know the consequences of this. So be very careful what you decide right now, no matter how you believe, if it's a temporary fix for safety, an easy fix. Is it really a fix? No, because we can't even live and create new cultures when we're being surveilled in this way. Is this freedom? Did we really think that this is freedom? When I go down the street, I see more cameras than ever. How many cultures, right or left, can be judged? How many times is the law not correct? Now you have automated, automatic machines delving out whether or not you got caught. Come on now. Look me in the face and tell me, every single one of you, look, I grew up in Windsor. Now, don't arrest me, but I've taken a piss on the side of the road before when I'm a kid because my dad said, nah, you got to go pee. What if I had a fucking flock camera staring at me as a kid with that? What about those cultural nuances? You go ahead, arrest me, people, for back then. Is that the future we want? Is that freedom? No, that's not freedom, people. Please think about this. Europeans know the answer. We should be talking about putting in privacy regulations. I also experienced other consequences. I spoke with Nate at one point, about two years ago, about algorithmic wage discrimination. These companies, Want to know everything about us. Behavioral analysis, what this is about. This sharing of data, this metadata, this innocuous data. Location, it tells you a picture about somebody. And then they use that to charge us, I don't know, digital surveillance pricing. We know that, right? We've heard of that, right? That's just the tip of the iceberg. I've lived it as a app worker. My wage, I couldn't count on it. I'd be working 11 hours, make 70 bucks one day. Another day I would make, you know, 100. And you know what the thing is? Why exactly is this other worker able to get all of this and I'm not? I'm working my ass off. That's not fundamentally fair. It's a different, is it a different issue here? No, it's not. That's eroding our hard-earned equal pay for equal work. So this is all rooting our rights and our conscience. I see you looking at me. You have a little over 30 seconds left. Okay, yeah, I really thought I had like literally four more minutes. That's how little time understanding I have. Anyways, Nazi Germany people, centralization of information. This is not the direction you want to go. If you want to know more about this topic, and if you think I'm lying on this, please get in contact with me. I will give you resources. Thank you very much.

Hello. My name is Ian McFarland. I've lived in Binghamton for a little over a year now to Air Street. I moved here after graduating RIT to work as a software engineer at KDAB, which is a software consultancy in downtown Binghamton. It's right across the road. I'm also here to some degree to represent my managing director, Nate Rogers, who's a Binghamtonian going back like five generations. He has opened this office in Binghamton, is trying to grow it, largely hiring interns coming from BU and surrounding colleges, such as my alma mater. But that's just context. I'm here to speak about the Flock cameras. My stance, as is the stance of many others here, is that you have a duty to pass a ban in this jurisdiction on all ALPR technologies. Others have already given excellent legal, philosophical, fiscal, and even psychological arguments against ALPR technology. As a passionate software engineer who has been programming and invested in technology since I was a child, I would like to provide some technological insight. I've been following the research papers that have been released since before 2017, when the paper Attention Is All You Need was published by researchers at Google, which defined the transformer LLM architecture, which would be used in the frontier models we see today, such as ChatGPT 5.6 and Anthropic Fable 5. I followed the work in the field of computer vision, so that's a related AI field that is also the technology that Flock uses to identify license plates in people's faces. This is kind of boring, but my insight is that the technical details do not change the conclusion whatsoever. Everything everyone else has said to argue about the issues with LPRs and the use of AI is absolutely true. I have a second point, actually I have three points. My second point is I grew up in College Station, Texas. There were flock cameras there, but a resident, while I was in college, he received a ticket and he was outraged by the unconstitutional nature of not having any chance to explain himself. So he sued the city and won. And there are no more flock cameras there. So it would be nice to go home. My third point is to return to my managing director and his attempts to start an office. His hiring attempts specifically to hire and get people to work in person in Binghamton largely have not worked. Pretty much without fail, except me, every new hire has moved to other offices or done remote work in other cities. I've spoken to all of them. Their feeling is the same as mine, as when I arrived in Binghamton initially, especially working in downtown Binghamton. The city feels as though it has an antagonistic relationship with its own citizens. Students and the unhoused are met with increased law enforcement effectiveness and a general cynicism that results in business owners and the house citizens. This place did not feel to them like it could ever be a home from an entirely just like feeling based intuitive perspective like it wasn't working for them and in the same vein I encourage you to realize that increased law enforcement effectiveness actively harms the community and it prevents new businesses from forming and from people coming to the city and wealth coming to the city. So once again, my stance is that you must issue a ban on all ALPR systems in Binghamton in order to not only avoid risk, but to actively begin the creation of something that could be a safe haven from the fascist practices of the current administration. Thank you.

Both mics working?

Hello, I'm Richard Giannacchio, also known as Ricardo. Good evening, Kenya, Sarah, Robert, Rebecca, Hadassah, Nate, and Robert, correct? And most of all, all the beautiful freedom warriors behind me, We hold these truths to be self-evident. Surveillance is not compatible with freedom nor with democracy. True or false? Flock is surveillance on steroids. True or false? True. Crime is not caused by a deficiency of surveillance and definitely not by a deficiency of flock. True or false? If crime is not caused by deficiency of flock, why is the city of Binghamton funding flock to reduce crime? In fact, ironically, there seems to be a very strange relationship because it appears that crime is worse than ever after the massive flock installation. Can we apprehend a few more perpetrators with flock? Theoretically, perhaps, but flock cannot prevent crime because crime is not prevented by a deficiency of flock. What factors are associated with increasing crime? I asked my artificial intelligence assistant, Gemini, Here's the response. The cause of increased crime are complex and rarely boil down to a single factor. Criminologists, sociologists, and public health experts generally view crime as a result of a perfect storm, in quotes, overlapping economic, social, and systemic pressures. When crime rates rise, it is usually due to a combination of the following top three drivers. One, economic strain and inequality. Two, systemic health and social crises. Three, community and social breakdown. Flock doesn't even make the list. The causes of crime include economic injustice, social injustice, racial injustice, and the mother of all crimes, political and corporate corruption, which is both a crime and a cause and enabler of other crimes, true or false. So why not put your energy and our tax dollars into reducing crime by addressing its causes? It's a no-brainer, my friends. My message is simple. Stop the surveillance on steroids and address the true causes and accelerators of crime. Thank you very much for listening.

Anybody else? Just wanted to say thank everyone who spoke tonight. We will now move on to our first reading legislation. First on the agenda we have Introductory Ordinance 026. Sorry. We'll go back to that. First on the agenda, we have Ordinary Ordinance 026-10, considered in Municipal and Public Affairs. Council Member Rathmell, can you read that for me, please?

I can, thank you, Council President Proetz at Middleton. This is introductory, actually, I'd like to introduce a motion to adopt Introductory Ordinance 026-10, an ordinance to authorize the sale of 42 Fayette Street to Paul Sadorsky.

I have a motion, do I have a second? Second. A motion and a second, discussion?

Sure, this property is one of about two dozen buildings. It was acquired by the city through a 2023 settlement with Isaac Anzerudt. A United States Coast Guard veteran who served in the 70s, Mr. Sadorski has resided at 42 Fayette for over five years and addressed critical repairs throughout his tenancy that had been ignored by Answer Route. Those repairs included replacing the furnace, resolving delinquent water bills, fixing utility equipment, and maintaining the grounds. Mr. Sadorski made an offer to purchase the property in 2024 when he learned that the city had acquired ownership. But his offer was rejected by the mayor's office in favor of a $250 offer from the owner of the adjacent parking lot who had plans to demolish the building and add more parking spaces. Council first brought public attention to the property last February. At the time, Mayor Cram claimed that the building was, quote, uninhabitable, and initiated eviction proceedings against Mr. Sadorski. Council strongly opposed forcing Mr. Sadorski out, and also questioned whether demolition was necessary. A building and code inspection requested by this council subsequently identified deficiencies, but none that were not remediable. And a second engineering opinion prepared by Delta engineers, also at the request of council, came to the same conclusion regarding the property's rehabilitation potential. Meanwhile, Mr. Sadorski, named in this ordinance, obtained legal counsel to fight his eviction, completed Metro Interfaith's first time home buyer course, secured financing for immediate repairs, proof of which I believe was sent to the city's attorney this afternoon, and sought assistance from multiple local organizations to support the property's rehabilitation. I'll add he has also made several attempts to pay the water bill, but the city has refused those payments. Tonight, nine months after this legislation was introduced and 20 months after Paul first indicated his interest to purchase, we are at the point of advancing the sale.

Thank you. Anybody else? Speaker Harding, this.

Yeah, I just want to like acknowledge the the work that Rebecca Rathmell her council councilman Rathmell had put into this It's kind of been a long ongoing fight to try to get to try to keep Paul in his home and Find funds to make that rehab happen and actually get the the property into his hands I think we're If we had one more member tonight, we could probably make that happen. But it'll get delayed to another meeting because we need six votes. But I think this is a good example of the things that we can do if we're willing to try to be a little bit more creative with our approach to housing rather than demolishing everything and turning it into vacant lots. So that's my two cents. Thanks.

Anybody else?

I think President Dundon was also pretty actively involved in this, so I want to thank him as well as Councilman Rathmell.

Thank you both for doing that. I just wanna say, I said this on Monday, a lot of the times, just because, and I'll say it again tonight in my closing comment, a lot of the times when you're doing this work, a lot of things are challenges, and it is policy-based, and even though you don't see the work happening right away, the work is still getting done, So I just, I thank people for working on that. Council Member Rathmell, Council Member Dundon for being really diligent and keeping the faith and knowing that Paul can stay in that home. That means a lot to him, especially being an older vet. And we know that it's hard to move, hard to find a place, especially being older and having a lot of issues. a lot of things that would keep him from finding an apartment. So thank you guys so much for that. We are going to move on because- Could I- Whoa.

Go ahead. Could I add just- Go ahead. And I appreciate those words. I do wanna point out there were several community members and partners and organizations that are also coming together to support Mr. Sadorski. This is not just a council effort, and though it does directly impact and involve Mr. Sadorski, the thing I want to make sure we're taking away from this legislation is that it transforms or at least provides an example of how we can approach situations like this in the future. We have long said that demolition is not a development strategy, and that displacement should only be considered as a last resort, not a first option. So when we talk about addressing the city's severe shortage of deeply affordable housing, it's not just new development. requires preserving the units, limited as they are, that are currently unavailable. So, I mean, our resident mentioned earlier the proactive rental housing inspection program that this council adopted in May. That will improve building and code compliance long term, but we also have to be deploying collaborative solutions that keep people from being forced out in the first place due to deteriorating conditions.

Thank you so much for that, Council Member Rathmel. And I just wanted to state that we won't vote on it tonight because our charter states that we need six votes to vote on real estate. On the sale. On the sale of real estate, excuse me, on the sale of real estate.

Do we need a motion to hold over or is it just?

No, we don't need a motion.

Okay. No, we don't.

Okay, so now we will move on to our next thing, next on the agenda is Introductory Ordinance 026-37, Considered in Rules and Procedures with Councilmember Matavetsky.

Great, I'd like to make a motion for Introductory Ordinance 026-37, an ordinance to amend Chapter Two, Traffic.

I'll second. Great. Motion and a second, discussion?

Great.

So we were presented with some draft legislation. We then had our own meeting with the towing companies, which can be viewed on YouTube. From that, we made a couple of modifications from the original proposed legislation. We've added in as part of the application process that people need to include whether or not the tow company has ever been removed from a tow list for cause or ever had contract with a public entity terminated for cause. integrating a little bit of the vibe that we have from our lowest responsible bidder work into our towing company work to make sure we don't have bad actors on our lists. Another change that we made is instead of the police department setting the rate, we're gonna be incorporating it into fee schedule so City Council will be looking at that as part of budget season and We'll be able to have those conversations about that so the proposed towing fees for for this year until January are included in the appendix a in our packet and And that was what the police department negotiated and had an agreement with the towing companies. Previously this was kind of like a, it was more of a policy thing than a regulated thing. So we're pulling it into policy, from policy into our code. We're not the only city doing this. I have had conversations with people in government all across the state. This seems to be a trendy topic right now, including all around within the municipalities. Here, there's no... Golden number for like what the right number is, but everyone has is Either has a cap or is in the process of setting a cap that I spoke to We're looking at our what we're voting on tonight as a cap of six which would include everyone that is currently qualified to do this work in the city of Binghamton to continue to do this work in the city of Binghamton and So that hopefully will be satisfactory to folks while creating enough stability for people to pay their insurance, keep their required machines, up to date and have the 24 hour staffing, people on call and all of that, that is needed to satisfy being on the tow rotation list for the city of Binghamton. But that said, with the public now being more aware that this is something council is engaged with, if you have issues with towing and stuff, tell your council person, let us know. And I'm trying to think if there's anything else. I think those are the two major changes that we made.

Anybody else? Clerk, can you please call the roll?

Council Member Rathmell. Aye. Council Member Matavetsky. Aye. Council Member Hotchkiss. Aye. Council Member Cavanagh. Aye. Council Members Murray and Dundon are absent. Aye. Council President Pro Tem Middleton. Thank you. That is 5-0.

Thank you. Next up on the agenda, we have Introductory Ordinance 026-53, Considered and Municipal and Public Affairs. Council Member Matavetsky, can you read that for me please?

I'd like to make a motion for introductory ordinance 026-53, an ordinance to amend the 2026 police budget for a New York state give grant adjustment.

Okay, we have a motion. Do I have a second?

I'll second.

Motion and second. Discussion?

Okay. So this council previously accepted money from New York State for our police department. This was an expedited topic. So just on this past Monday, we heard from the police department that the position that was supposed to be funded by this grant. It took them a while to get someone into that position. They are in that position now, but because of that, there's remaining money for them to spend down, and that they've been working behind the scenes with New York State to try and figure out a legal way to move forward with a spend down. They did send us, for people who followed on Monday, a breakdown of that grant. That was this one, right? So I'm gonna go pull that up. If I can find it quickly.

And the deadline for spending was, I think, July, end of July, right? Yeah.

So this was the equipment budget. So it would be $8,000 for electric police bicycles, $2,000 for police bicycles, parentheses, pedal, non-electric, Nikon DSLR cameras, camera equipment, licenses, SD cards, and tripods. And that's for $907.97. So that's the breakdown. And I guess that's it. That's the summary.

I would just thank, and again, for those who followed Monday, but if not, thank Council Member Hotchkiss for requesting that itemized list, and Council Member Matavetsky for stressing the need to give reason for expedition. This council has previously, particularly with the Binghamton Police Department and legislation requests or budget amendments, have received vague reasoning and nonspecific budget requests. I think we heard clearly there was a liquid liquidation timeline. This is not additional funds for the department is it is an allocation within it. And now that we know exactly how it's intended to be spent, we can monitor that it is indeed spent that way.

Anybody else? Clerk, can you please call the roll? Council Member Rathmell. Aye. Council Member Matavetsky. Aye. Council Member Hotchkiss. Aye. Council Member Cavanaugh. Aye. Council Members Murray and Dunn are absent. Aye. Council President Pro Tem Middleton. Thank you, that is 5-0.

Next on the agenda, we have introductory resolution R26-46, considered in planning with Council Member Rathmell.

Thank you, Council President Pro Tem Middleton. I'd like to make a motion to adopt introductory resolution R26-46, a resolution to authorize the acceptance of a New York State DOS funding for corridor smart growth. I'll second.

Motion and a second, discussion?

So I'll just add a description of the corridor smart growth planning. It's a study that directs new development along major transportation routes, i.e. corridors throughout the city. So this has a north-south component and it has an east-west component within the city. We had a good bit of discussion and some delay even in moving this forward, particularly Council Member Manabetski and I took issue with the fact that the transportation corridor extending into the south side was not somehow included in the north to south component of this planning effort. We did request specifics regarding what it would cost. This otherwise would be fully funded by a grant that we'll discuss next. However, because the south side is embarking on a Conklin Avenue neighborhood district plan, that could potentially accomplish similar outcomes. The corridor aspects can be rolled into that effort. We just need the south side to stop being excluded and left out of the commercial and business considerations. of the rest of the city. We understand that downtown exists. I don't think anybody can miss that. But there are other commercial areas and business districts within the city that deserve the same attention.

Anybody else?

THIS CORRIDOR PLANNING INITIATIVE ALSO INCLUDES FORM-BASED CODE FOR THESE TWO CORRIDORS WHICH IS A DIFFERENT WAY OF EVALUATING SITES FOR DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION BASED ON THE Form literally the form of the plot and the and the structure and not so much the the use base Which is what our code is is currently based on now? So this would be a kind of Binghamton second swing at looking at adopting form based code for part of the city so we're going to be looking at that throughout this this process and and looking at whether that's going to be a new direction for us and something that the city will adopt. And that would then in theory spread to other districts over time, but this is kind of the pilot.

one of the things that was agreed to was that in the reporting for this project they will be explicit that basically the south side was kind of arbitrarily not included and They may be able to pull in some of the results from the Conklin Ave corridor study into this report, recognize it, try and make sure that when we're pulling up these documents that we are getting grant money to have done a lot of time and community discussions and engagement. That's one of the big things that these consultants do is they come in and have these community engagement discussions that those reports that come out of it reference each other and reference limitations and reference existing data. I think we're pretty proud that the South Washington Pedestrian Bridge is one of the most used. When you're talking about a north-south corridor, it's really important to include pedestrians in that topic and not just cars, so thanks.

Anybody else? Clerk, please call the roll.

Council Member Rathmell. Aye. Council Member Matabetski. Aye. Council Member Hotchkiss. Aye. Council Member Cavanaugh. Aye. Council Members Murray and Dunn are absent. Council President Pro Tem. Aye. Thank you. Those 5-0.

Thank you so much. Next on the agenda, we have introductory resolution R26-47, considered in planning with Council Member Rathmell.

Thank you. I will motion to adopt introductory resolution R26-47, a resolution to enter into an agreement with Labella for corridor smart growth. Second.

Motion and a second.

Discussion? We discussed the corridor smart growth in the last piece of legislation. This agreement is with the consulting firm to perform that study. And again, it's fully grant funded.

Okay, no other discussion. Clerk, please call the roll.

Council Member Rathmell. Aye. Council Member Matavetsky. Aye.

Council Member Hotchkiss.

Aye.

Council Member Cavanaugh.

Aye. Council Members Murray and Dunner absent. Council President Proctor-Middleton. Thank you, that is five-zero.

Thank you. Next on the agenda, we have Introductory Resolution R26-50, considered in planning with Council Member Rathmell.

Thank you, I'd like to make a motion to adopt introductory resolution R26-50, a resolution to submit an application for New York State Climate Smart Communities Grant.

Motion, do I have a second? Second. Motion and second, discussion?

This will support Vines locally in submitting a grant to expand their compost program. We had a resident that spoke in favor representing the Commission for the Conservation of the Environment who has taken up, composting over the past year and this simply authorizes the city to submit that grant on behalf of mines okay I just want to ask to make sure the the fund numbers changed Monday from what we were originally

Not the city's match, but the rest of the numbers were updated yesterday before posting.

So our match isn't updated?

The match stayed the same is what I was trying to say.

Oh, the match stayed the same, okay.

Clerk, can you please call the roll? There isn't any other discussion.

Council member Rathmell. Aye. Council member Matavetsky. Aye. Council member Hotchkiss. Aye. Council member Cavanaugh. Aye. Council members Murray and Dunn are absent. Aye. Council President Pro Tem Middleton. Thank you. It is 5-0.

Next on the agenda, we have introductory resolution R26-51, considered in planning with Council Member Rathmell.

I'd like to make a motion to adopt introductory resolution R26-51, a resolution to authorize an agreement with United Presbyterian Church for a warming center.

I have a motion to have a second. I have a motion and second. Discussion?

For context, and this has been a conversation that this council has been having for several months. Binghamton's United Presbyterian Church has been home to the Up Comfort Center, which provides overnight accommodations to unhoused individuals since 2023. It was previously operated by the Addiction Center of Broome County. But the agency informed UPC leadership late last year that they had lost a significant source of private funding and would no longer be able to run the center. Pastor Kimberly Chastain at UPC Pretty immediately reached out to a number of partners in the faith-based and nonprofit community for help including City Council So we were notified of the potential loss in December of last year within a month we had moved to allocate a hundred and twenty thousand dollars from unspent community development block grant funding to support do and that is what this final authorization will advance I don't want to leave out the fact that in addition to the city United Way of Broome County has stepped up to offer funding assistance and it's not just for sustaining warming center operations it's to expand those operations so these expansions include Increasing the center days and hours of operation, formerly the facility ran Sunday through Friday from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. Now the facility will be open 5 p.m. to 9 a.m., seven days a week, so no gap in service. Two shifts of overnight staff, three overnight staff with part-time respite coverage for heavy utilization times and scheduled breaks, also an expansion. Eight beds were added, so it's configured to allow for 25 beds for men and 25 beds for women, but there's flexibility depending on the capacity needed. And finally, dedicated space for emotional support animals. The Broome County Urban League has also partnered to provide the administrative and services support. If you are watching our conversation on Monday evening, Executive Director Jen Lesko has said that since they took over on July 1st, her staff have already been able to help three guests secure permanent housing, and there are three more whom they're close to signing leases for.

It's just kind of a misnomer that we keep calling it. What's that? Warming Center. What's that?

Oh, the warming center? Yes. So warming center is a very specific, is a very specific, has specific criteria. Technically, it can't be called an emergency shelter because that comes with a number of state regulations. But the warming center itself, simply because it provides primarily those overnight accommodations is what allows for the, you could call it a cooling center in the summer and it would mean the same thing.

Anybody else?

I want to thank Councilwoman Rathmel for leading this effort as well.

Okay.

I think additionally, like, thanking the Urban League for stepping up and filling in that gap to run programming there is worth recognizing. Thanks.

Clark, can you please call the roll? Councilmember Rathmel? Aye. Council Member Matavetsky. Aye. Council Member Hotchkiss. Aye. Council Member Cavanaugh. Aye. Council Members Murray and Jenner absent. Aye. Council President Pro Tem Middleton. Thank you, that is 5-0.

Thank you so much, Clerk. Next on the agenda, we have Introductory Resolution R26-53, considered in Public Works and Parks with Council Member Hotchkiss.

Thank you, Council President Pro Tem Middleton. Make a motion to adopt introductory resolution R26-53. This is a resolution to authorize funds for a small grants community for Ely Park golf improvements.

I have a motion, do I have a second?

Second.

Motion second, discussion regarding this RL?

So this money, I guess, was initially earmarked for a mural at the stadium. The ownership has not been in favor of that any longer since it changed hands. So it's being shifted to improving the trails and the golf course.

Thank you. Anybody else? Clerk, please call the roll.

Council member Rathmell. Aye. Council member Matabetski. Aye. Council member Hotchkiss. Aye. Council member Cavanaugh. Aye. Council members Murray and Dundon are absent. Council President Pro Tem Middleton. Thank you. That is 5-0.

Thank you so much. Next on the agenda, we have introductory resolution R26-54, considered in planning by Council Member Rathmell.

Thank you, Council President Pro Tem Middleton. I have no intention of motioning to adopt this legislation, but I will introduce R26-54, a resolution to submit an application for New York's Main Street Downtown Anchor Program.

I'll make the motion.

I have a motion, do I have a second?

I'll second.

Motion and second, discussion regarding this?

The Main Street Downtown Anchor Program that we're being asked to authorize an application for describes the proposed project as a vacant historic building rehabilitated end to end at 81 Court Street, one ground floor for commercial space, and then six to nine upper story apartments. The programmatic vision is a restored historic commercial storefront with a mix of market rate and attainable rental apartments. If you watched on Monday, council asked economic development staff to explain what attainable rental apartments mean. To be clear, Attainable does not mean affordable. An attainable rental rate is market rate housing at 80 to 120% of the area median income. This project proposes to target 90% of AMI, so just industry speak to mean that an individual making around 60 to $65,000 a year would be eligible to obtain these apartments. The proposal further identifies that the apartments will be positioned to serve Binghamton University affiliated tenants, downtown professionals, and young professionals returning to a walkable downtown. Further discussion on Monday evening, I inquired whether the applicant of this proposal, who as far as I can tell, although he did not list all of his LLCs, owns at least 12 properties in Broome County, I inquired whether any efforts were made to ensure that this particular applicant who's been chosen for this proposal, if those properties were reviewed to see if they are currently up to code, if there are any historic condition issues with his properties, if any of that due diligence was pursued and the response was no, it had not been considered. So this is also not the first time that we've received a request to authorize a Main Street Downtown Anchor program project. Last May, we had this exact same conversation about a project that proposed to develop four same format commercial space, but then four high end residential apartments on the upper floors. And so the comment that I will share this evening is the same that I shared on Monday evening. I did not vote yes last year. I will not vote yes this year. And I will continue to not vote to advance any housing development project that does not include deeply affordable rates until we've dedicated a line item from our general fund to address this at scale. Attainable rental rates, to reiterate, are not affordable rental units and those most in need of housing in this community are not Binghamton University affiliated tenants or downtown professionals making 60 plus thousand dollars a year. Those most in need are unhoused individuals who without housing accommodation are being murdered on the street and dying in hotel fires.

Anybody else?

Everything that Councilman Rathmel said is true. You know, and she has a strong opinion about supporting deeply affordable housing first and foremost. I would agree that that's a good way to move, but the state has not made that a requirement for this program or for submitting under this program. I think we would have greatly preferred if anyone with a lower or deeply affordable project had put in an application, but they did not. None of the applications that came in, period, and none of the ones that were valid certainly were featured lower moderate income or deeply affordable housing. From a very basic standpoint, I don't think we should simply turn our backs on funding source for any sort of development because it's not the development we prefer when there's no other development on the table.

There is actually no way to know that the city prefers or had any intention to prioritize deeply affordable development for this application because when the city issued the opportunity, it did not indicate in that application that projects that prefer or identify deeply affordable housing would be given priority. And I said this last year, that our opportunity, no, the state does not require that we prioritize deeply affordable housing. They allow us to develop at up to 120% of the area median income. We do not have a deficit Low to moderate income housing we have significant deficits upwards of 3,000 units for deeply affordable housing so if the city wants to keep claiming that it Prioritizes affordable development then it needs to put it in an application proposal so that those responding Understand it to be a preference that was not done after I requested it last year wasn't done this year and so to say that we didn't get any projects and That said they would do deeply affordable housing.

We didn't tell people that that's what we were looking for But everyone I Think we should put it in we should Make that preference clearer somehow sure, but if there were any projects percolating out there looking for this sort of I looking for this sort of investment or state grant, you'd think they would pick up on the RFPs just like they do for any other program. I just don't think there is a project in the pipeline that would meet the criteria for the grant. Or we would have gotten that application.

So Monday, one of the discussion points was introducing a piece of legislation to make that request more than just a request, but actually law, I guess. So I guess I would support what you suggested on Monday for going forward. I don't know exactly how we do that, but I would support that.

Trickier than I hoped, apparently. OK.

but it's also not new. I made that request last year, and I will say in the last year we have seen, for example, the pre-development fund that Mayor Cram agreed to include in his budget for CDBG, $100,000, we got on record that he would include language to prioritize deeply affordable development. We've done that for a number of projects, but as you mentioned, it's trickier than just passing an ordinance, so we do it project proposal by project proposal until we figure out that language. But it's been years of requesting that and instead of just continuing to pass legislation because they put it in front of us and tell us to expedite it because the application deadline is at the end of the month, we can actually just stop agreeing to advance a project.

To be clear, we had a council member on the committee reviewing the proposals. This was not some blind thing. We've been left out of this process.

Out of the blue. These things have application windows and deadlines, as you well know.

So in terms of, again, bringing back to the discussion we had on Monday, this project does not require, we are not being asked for a pilot from the city, so we're not being asked to subsidize it. Well, that's a question when it comes to it, whether that is something we wanna do.

I won't, but go ahead.

Okay. Neither will I. As far as I'm aware, there's no pilot request for this, and there's no local match in terms of taxpayer dollars. And if we don't support this proposal, there won't be a proposal in, and that building will likely continue to be housing zero occupants.

I'll just mention one final comment that was made by the Director of Economic Development on Monday evening when I identified the severe deficit of deeply affordable housing and unhoused individuals who currently have no housing accommodations and should be preferenced over just broader amenities for individuals who are already housed. The response was, well, the downtown community is a community too. and should be considered, and I don't think, and I kind of mentioned this earlier, I don't think anyone would argue that the downtown community has received significant preference, and it's probably time that we expand that. The other comment that was made, and I believe Council Member Cavanaugh, you mentioned, you don't think anyone would expect us to just build for one demographic. We've been doing that as a city for 15 years. We've spent, since 2012, we've built 2,700 units of student housing. We built almost exclusively for students after the development of the downtown center and as the university expanded. Then we switched to luxury housing. So the first market was saturated, we still decided not to prioritize residents, and we built for projected people that may move into the area who can afford luxury amenities. It's imbalanced, we're 10 years behind, and until we build at scale enough homes for extremely low and very low income residents to actually put a roof over their families' heads, I don't know why we're having this conversation.

Because denying this, promoting or denying this application, all it is is a blessing to go apply for something from this date does not hinder or help any deeply affordable housing project or any other housing project. It's a yes and situation.

It does nothing to demonstrate. It would be a different discussion if we came to this table and the Economic Development Department was able to say we identified a strong preference in this outreach for applications that would develop deeply affordable housing. It would be a different discussion if they came to us and said, we told developers and worked with organizations to preference opportunities to include deeply affordable development. It would be a different discussion. We requested that last year, I guess I did, That wasn't done, and so we're supposed to do the same thing again this year, where they're like, we'll do that next time. At what point do we hold them accountable for demonstrating that commitment?

I don't think you're holding anyone accountable by loading the project down. You're just not.

Any other discussion? Clerk, can you please call the roll?

No, not yet. So I think basically the way this was presented to me initially is there's two applications. One application would displace everybody and turn that building into luxury housing this was the different one that would just it's currently vacant not really serving a great purpose and doesn't serve those with the most need but it I don't think in my mind that a vacant building is really serving any any need But I agree with Council Member Rathmell's position that the city has to do a little bit more to prioritize deeply affordable housing. I'm considering making a motion to hold over to see if we can get this application modified to have some commitment to affordability within that development.

there's a time on it and yeah so the full application is due July 31st so if you're talking about holding it over the next business meeting is on July 29th which means we'd have about two days to get the application together and submit it if that's what was going to happen I don't know if that's a feasible time frame to get the application together because i'm not sure anyone's going to put the time into it without knowing whether or not this is going to move forward at this stage any other discussion council member rathmel if there was a commitment for

some of the units to be affordable or deeply affordable, would you consider supporting it if that changed? So it'd be sort of the inclusionary model.

If they're willing to include, I would say, three to four deeply affordable units in their proposal, then it would be worth more consideration. And I think just that approach is something we've discussed also at this table. We've not introduced legislation because we're still rolling out proactive code, but that would actually be an effective zoning approach. Inclusionary zoning is a model that requires any development To include affordable units. Typically, it's at a 15 to 20 percent rate Any project That gets approved in a city that adopts inclusionary zoning needs to have a set-aside For affordable apartments. I think we have a good case for that here. So and that is the I mean as I understand it the Approach that you're proposing for this project it's It would make it worth more consideration and whether or not they want to make those changes would be up to them based on The grant timeline, but I don't think we should have to scramble When they're the ones that want to advance this this project I Mean it's it's already

Asking for even two would almost certainly torpedo the math, which you well know.

Developing deeply affordable housing is difficult, but just because something's hard doesn't mean it's not worth doing. And that's what we should have been doing for the last decade. We haven't. That's not this project proposal's fault, but it is the city's fault. And the only way to turn that around is to demand more.

just gonna end up with a vacant building continuing in this case.

Or there'd be, we'd have to commit more subsidy. Sure.

which is something else we've discussed. Right now there is not a single budget line item from our general budget that is dedicated to the preservation or development of deeply affordable housing.

I think it's just generous of you to keep equating general fund property tax money from not directing funds available to those efforts.

We've been relying, hoping that the state, the only thing the city has been doing, budget-wise, so if we wanna use the put your money where your mouth is term, the only thing the city has been doing is relying on the state, and we have a robust, grant-funded state program, Homes and Community Renewal. There are several procurement streams. But those deeply affordable development projects take on average seven years to develop. And it's because braiding the funding to support them is so difficult. If we had started in 2017 when this was first recommended, by me to reserve funding in the general budget year after year to put toward the development of or preservation of deeply affordable housing, we would be able to contribute general budget fund money to those developments and reduce the development timeframe. We didn't do it then, we're still not doing it. Are we gonna talk about it during budget season? Yes, absolutely. But I mean, I think the point has been made.

Anybody else?

I'll make a motion to hold it over.

A motion to hold it over? We have a motion to hold it over. Do we have a second? I'll second it so it can get held over.

Okay for those listening holdover means that it doesn't get voted on today. It has to be voted on at the next business meeting Thank you so much.

Now.

We will move on to council communications and tonight we will start with councilmember medevetsky The Southside neighborhood assembly is gonna have their picnic on July 21st at Ross Park We had a really nice Southside Sundays at Southside Commons this past Sunday, great turnout, very nice diverse crowd, different backgrounds, the park regulars as well as people who walked over there, some Southsiders who drove down there, really enjoyed particularly the concert by Caviar and Grits, really nice time, free concert, They happen second Sunday, every Sunday of the summer in the Southside Commons. Upcoming Binghamton Bridge Pedal is coming up. It's going to be... The sign-ups are happening now. It's gonna be on August 1st, and the bike rides will go through most of the districts. Technically, it won't go into District 5, but it will go right up near it in District 6. We have community conversations at Ross Park Zoo coming up, and I didn't write down the date for it, but they're gonna be hosting community conversations to try and understand what the community wants to make a better use of the Ross Park Zoo. So I guess email me if you want more information, and I'll send it to you if you can't find it online. Discovery Center has the Luma Living Lights Project Youth Edition coming up July 21st from 10 a.m. to noon. They're going to be doing designs, and a selection of those designs will actually be put up at Luma in September. We had the South... Sunday Safari at the zoo this past weekend, and they had the area nonprofits competed for the best ice cream sundae. Achieve came in first place, so congratulations to Achieve. Second place was Phelps Mansion, and third place was Broome County Public Library. So I wanted to thank all the organizations that were involved, which also includes Room to Heal, American Red Cross, Family Enrichment Network, and Southern Tier Independence Center. There was a discussion about ICE here in Binghamton, and we, I unfortunately ran in and actually saw their work on 434 in Rebecca's district, and I It was pretty upsetting just to see how they operate and how they, in the case, I didn't actually see an arrest or detainment, but they were parked SUVs across 434 in the direction towards Vestal, and there was at least one agent walking around outside. There was no cones, no warnings, no anything, just from like a basic traffic safety. when you actually encounter them is deeply upsetting. Thank you.

Next up, Council Member Rathmell.

Just two quick things. I mentioned the Reimagining Center City group is meeting tomorrow. We have completed our survey of neighborhood residents in Center City regarding revitalization opportunities and neighborhood needs. So we will be announcing soon, we'll decide tomorrow, when the public presentation of those survey results will be to facilitate a collaborative, kind of collective community conversation about opportunities in Center City. Also, proactive code, rental housing inspection program as adopted in May was mentioned a few times this evening. We have a tentative date for our community education forum. We'll have two forums. it'll be thursday august 20th we'll have a forum for property owners and landlords who will be impacted by the the new compliance expectations and then one for tenants and community members i i would say we will be looking for kind of volunteer canvas support i know we've had some discussion with binghamton tenants union but other organizations who are willing to kind of get the materials out neighborhood residents we want to make sure they understand what the program means for their apartment in particular and that when inspections do come around they're they're kind of working with us to get those inspections done rather than just you know having concerns about someone from the city showing up at their apartment so again tentatively and I'll get the the times out as soon as we have them but but Thursday August 20th

Councilmember Hotchkiss Thank You council president pro tem and thank you all for coming out tonight and sharing your concerns primarily about flock flock safety I shared this before but I think it's it bears repeating that I committed to not renewing the contract with with flock and pursuing further avenues to remove a PLR is through without throughout city limits I think there's a there's Thanks. I think there's a number of growing concerns. Some of the numbers that are mentioned are already outdated during public comment about communities that have dropped the use of flock cameras and they continue to go up. LAPD recently canceled their contract. That's a massive police department. And also there's many, as you know, there's many class action lawsuits that are currently pursuing legal action against Flock. I think that the city of Binghamton could potentially be partied to some of those suits based on like very early Guess case studies about how that information is being used in the city So that that's what I can commit to me commit to you tonight. I Can't vote on anything, but that's gonna be down the road.

So, thank you Thank You council member Hotchkiss council member Cavanaugh

Echoing Councilmember Hotchkiss, my sincere thanks to everyone that's come out and shared their few points, particularly on flock tonight. I want to tilt at a windmill for a second. There's a lot of discussion of Fourth Amendment and protections against search and seizure. It has so often been not an adequate shield particularly in the face of modern technology. The right to privacy was also mentioned a lot, but the right to privacy is something that we have constructed and not enshrined in many ways. And it needs sustained generational effort to change that. I don't know that the federal constitution is very amendable anymore given current political structure of our country, but the New York state constitution is. Every, I think, 10 years or so, the New York state constitution requires a referendum on the ballot to ask if we should have a constitutional convention. It keeps getting defeated. The last one got defeated just a year or two ago. That should be an effort of our citizens, I think, of New York to make privacy an essential part of the New York State Constitution and something that is enforceable and something that meets the modern technology that's coming up against our individual freedoms and just rights to exist. So that's a long-term thing to all keep in the back of your minds next time you see a weird little referendum on your ballot asking for a constitutional convention for New York State, do it. That doesn't deal with our immediate concerns here in the city, but we'll be working on that as a group and how to approach our own surveillance situation in the city. But I'll step away from the windmill now.

guess that's my turn i have a whole list of things so on next thursday july 23rd we will have our um mpa committee meeting at 9 30 a.m regarding the flock cameras we also will have a representative from flock there it is open to the public so you are all welcome to come to that um regarding that discussion I also want to thank every single person who came out today to speak regarding that. This is how we learn. We're just merely elected officials and we learn from each and every one of you. So even though you may think that your comment may not have been important, it is very important to all of us because we're just representatives in this job. I just wanted to say a few things personal that's kind of been sitting on my heart and weighing on my heart. I wanted to say first, rest in peace to the people that lost their lives at the Knights Inn. This has been a very sad tragedy and something that could have been prevented. And I wanted to say rest in peace to those people. I also wanted to say that somehow somewhere there's a divide and there's a divide to people and you know right now because we're all so angry we're looking for people to blame right because we're all upset regarding those things that are preventable and there's a divide I want I want to say to everyone work together try your best to work together there are people who who don't wanna work together and who put out this narrative that city council does not care, that we don't care, that council member Rathmel does not care about houseless people, which is untrue. I have witnessed her speak to people by name and talk to them and ask them for help. So I want to say that to everyone, continue to work together. Try to work together if you can. There are some powers that be. There are some people who don't want to work together, who want to cause division and focus on the need for their selves or what they want to do for their selves. But the main goal is to help the people in the city of Binghamton. As elected officials, sometimes we get it right and sometimes we get it wrong. We're all learning every single day, even in the three years that I've been an elected official, I'm still learning and I'm still effing up. There's things that you know we don't we don't get right but I can say that I am proud to stand with each and every council member here and know that even if we get it wrong our heart is in the right place we want to do the right thing that's one of the reasons why council member Rathmel and council member Cavanaugh went back and forth because we all see things in a different lens in a different way but we all want the best for Binghamton so i wanted to thank you all for coming thank you for staying to go through the agenda with us please again reach out to us whatever you think you know might not matter or whatever you may think that is not important it is very important to us and with that i would like to make a motion to adjourn second oh a motion in a second