Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Paterson 6-15-10
Paterson 6-15-10
New York City residents should not bear more than 95% of the total statewide
revenue-sharing cut. All other cities, towns, and villages were cut only 1-5% each, while
New York City was cut a full 100%.
New York City is the States economic engine, and it generates nearly half of the
States entire revenue over $28 billion last year. Returning our full revenue-sharing
payment is still only one and one-eighth percent of the revenue we generate for the State.
The revenue-sharing cut is the largest cut to the City in the State budget
proposals. It is responsible for two-thirds of the State cuts to our non-education funds. It
will mean 50 fewer senior centers, the elimination of nurses at small schools, the closure
of a homeless drop-in center, and the elimination of adult literacy programs and it will
even affect City agencies that do not receive State funds. And, by undermining our ability
to deliver services that help attract private investment, it will hurt local job creation
and, with it, State tax revenues.
The impact of revenue sharing affects both the current and the next State fiscal
year. The commitment to fund New York City next year is crucial, and if the City is not
substantially funded in the current year, then a mere promise for future years will not be
sufficient to restore City services.
Every Governor since Thomas Dewey has included New York City in the States
revenue-sharing program. Over these past six decades, the funding has endured multiple
economic cycles and has been distributed in good times and bad. The elimination of New
York City from the program would end a commitment that has weathered fiscal crises far
worse than the current one. It is up to the States leadership not to allow the City to be
eliminated from the revenue-sharing program, and not to preside over an historic
abdication of responsibility to New York City.
Sincerely,