Sticky Upstate/Downstate Wicket In Fight Over Construction Bidding Law
Critics say effort to keep law is driven by New York City labor groups, hurts upstate economies
Mon, 01 Mar 2010 15:30:00
Almost 100 years after lawmakers enacted a statute requiring all public works projects to have multiple contractors bidding for the job and working on the site, Gov. David Paterson proposed repealing the law for almost the same reason it was originally passed: to fight corruption, increase competition and drive down construction costs.
Paterson and critics of the Wicks law said that the state could save $200 million a year by exempting school districts from the law’s requirements, and believe that repealing the law could bring financial relief to cash-strapped counties and municipalities upstate that are forced to overpay for labor on public works projects.
The battle over the Wicks law is deepening divisions, both between the private sector and labor groups, and between upstate and downstate interests. With the state leadership now entirely composed of downstate Democrats, and many of those leaders beholden to New York City-based labor groups to help finance their campaigns, upstate business groups and local government officials who claim that the law increases construction costs fear that there is little chance of reform in the near future.
“This tends to be driven by the New York City labor unions,” said Brian Sampson, executive director of Unshackle Upstate, a non-profit that represents over 45,000 upstate businesses. “If it’s being driven by the New York City folk, than the upstate leaders fall in line.”
Upstate reformers and private sector interests have been successful at instituting a series of revisions to the law over the years, arguing that the law discourages non-union firms from winning bids, thus making projects much more costly. After the most recent set of amendments in 2008, Wicks now only applies to upstate projects costing more than $500,000 and New York City projects costing more than $3 million.
Rebecca Meinking, president of the Empire State Chapter of Associated Builders and Contractors, said that if the modifications mean minor savings, then major changes would bring even more savings.
“If there is enough evidence that says that this is a costly law, that it is resulting in taxpayers paying more for public construction than they should, then get rid of the law,” she said.
But building trades and specialty contractors are now drawing the line in the sand over a four-year moratorium that Gov. David Paterson proposed, fearful that it would lead to the eventual repeal of the law. They were successful in getting Paterson to drop a similar effort from the budget last year, and have said they are confidant the governor will be defeated again. Wicks supporters cast the governor’s effort as a misguided attempt to cozy up to wealthy private developers to help reverse his slipping political fortunes. They say that Paterson’s claim that repealing the law would save the state money is based on discredited research.
“You have a piece of legislation on books for 100 years now that saves taxpayers money and increases competition,” said Clark Condé, director of the Rochester Building and Construction Trades Council. “I have no idea what the governor is doing.”
The fight over the Wicks law is now playing out in the courts.
A group of business groups and local governments led by Erie County Executive Chris Collins recently filed suit to strike down the amendments, in the hopes that a legal victory could spur the Legislature to finally get rid of the law for good.
Collins said he hopes the lawsuit levels the playing field for the Wicks law and forces downstate unions to realize how costly the law has proven for their upstate counterparts.
“New York City interests will scream bloody murder,” Collins said, “and they’ll be forced to do what’s right and repeal the entire law.”
Attorney General Andrew Cuomo’s office has moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that if critics disagree with the Wicks law, they should seek to change it at the ballot box.
But Michael Powers, a Buffalo lawyer who is lead attorney on the lawsuit, said that because Cuomo is obligated to uphold all the state’s laws, his defense of the Wicks law does not necessarily reflect how his position might change if he were elected to another office.
“The attorney general has no choice,” Powers said. “It certainly doesn’t reflect what his position would be if he were elected governor.”
Paterson and critics of the Wicks law said that the state could save $200 million a year by exempting school districts from the law’s requirements, and believe that repealing the law could bring financial relief to cash-strapped counties and municipalities upstate that are forced to overpay for labor on public works projects.
The battle over the Wicks law is deepening divisions, both between the private sector and labor groups, and between upstate and downstate interests. With the state leadership now entirely composed of downstate Democrats, and many of those leaders beholden to New York City-based labor groups to help finance their campaigns, upstate business groups and local government officials who claim that the law increases construction costs fear that there is little chance of reform in the near future.
“This tends to be driven by the New York City labor unions,” said Brian Sampson, executive director of Unshackle Upstate, a non-profit that represents over 45,000 upstate businesses. “If it’s being driven by the New York City folk, than the upstate leaders fall in line.”
Upstate reformers and private sector interests have been successful at instituting a series of revisions to the law over the years, arguing that the law discourages non-union firms from winning bids, thus making projects much more costly. After the most recent set of amendments in 2008, Wicks now only applies to upstate projects costing more than $500,000 and New York City projects costing more than $3 million.
Rebecca Meinking, president of the Empire State Chapter of Associated Builders and Contractors, said that if the modifications mean minor savings, then major changes would bring even more savings.
“If there is enough evidence that says that this is a costly law, that it is resulting in taxpayers paying more for public construction than they should, then get rid of the law,” she said.
But building trades and specialty contractors are now drawing the line in the sand over a four-year moratorium that Gov. David Paterson proposed, fearful that it would lead to the eventual repeal of the law. They were successful in getting Paterson to drop a similar effort from the budget last year, and have said they are confidant the governor will be defeated again. Wicks supporters cast the governor’s effort as a misguided attempt to cozy up to wealthy private developers to help reverse his slipping political fortunes. They say that Paterson’s claim that repealing the law would save the state money is based on discredited research.
“You have a piece of legislation on books for 100 years now that saves taxpayers money and increases competition,” said Clark Condé, director of the Rochester Building and Construction Trades Council. “I have no idea what the governor is doing.”
The fight over the Wicks law is now playing out in the courts.
A group of business groups and local governments led by Erie County Executive Chris Collins recently filed suit to strike down the amendments, in the hopes that a legal victory could spur the Legislature to finally get rid of the law for good.
Collins said he hopes the lawsuit levels the playing field for the Wicks law and forces downstate unions to realize how costly the law has proven for their upstate counterparts.
“New York City interests will scream bloody murder,” Collins said, “and they’ll be forced to do what’s right and repeal the entire law.”
Attorney General Andrew Cuomo’s office has moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that if critics disagree with the Wicks law, they should seek to change it at the ballot box.
But Michael Powers, a Buffalo lawyer who is lead attorney on the lawsuit, said that because Cuomo is obligated to uphold all the state’s laws, his defense of the Wicks law does not necessarily reflect how his position might change if he were elected to another office.
“The attorney general has no choice,” Powers said. “It certainly doesn’t reflect what his position would be if he were elected governor.”
