The Observer has one of Matt Scheurman's usually thoughtful pieces, this one's on the feud over the development of Coney Island. In it, the focus is on the city's dislike of Mr. Sitt and its attempt to make an end run of his considerable leverage in the area: "Now, $150 million later, Mr. Sitt has gained about 80 percent of the amusement area and a reputation as a land speculator. On Nov. 8, Mayor Bloomberg revealed a plan to redevelop Coney Island into the largest urban amusement area in the country, mapping out a strategy to divest Mr. Sitt of the land he has painstakingly assembled."
Not so fast. As Crain's reported the other day, the city apparently has acted precipitously with regard to Sitt and the development of the area: "Mayor Mike Bloomberg’s Coney Island redevelopment plan faces opposition from city and state lawmakers, sources say. Insiders were shocked when the mayor announced the plan last week without securing support from Assemblyman Alec Brook-Krasny, state Sen. Diane Savino and City Councilman Domenic Recchia."
To this we could add State Senator Carl Kruger, who represents a sliver of Coney, and whose influence in this regard would exceed Savino's due to his close relationship with Majority Leader Bruno. In addition, it should be pointed out, that Sitt has been cultivating the right elected officials and his ability to play rope-a-dope with the Bloombergistas shouldn't be underestimated.
What Sitt needs, however, is a better development plan, one that incorporates community sentiment and makes his efforts to build something significant easier to accomplish. In all likelihood, this will eventually happen only under new political configurations circa 2009.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Garbage Obfuscation
The entire debate around what to do with the city's tens of thousands of daily tons of garbage continues to be debated-just not with any degree of clarity. This lack of clarity is owed to the fact that the debate is dominated by folks who, like the one trick pony, have only a narrow perspective on solving the problem.
These environmentalists-still imbued with the quasi-religiosity that characterized the Earth Day movement-haven't yet come up with any decent new ideas, at least ones that don't involve thrusting more responsibilities on to stores. The latest plastic bag initiative is symbolic of this mindset; there's nothing that the stores can't be required to do face of the failure of the city's curbside effort to meet the overblown expectations of the environmental advocates.
Which brings us to the current Gotham Gazette post on the subject of garbage (and the discussion by Liz). The Gothamites pose the question this way: "Your home trash sorting is a tiny piece of the city's waste management puzzle. Once it all leaves your curbside, the real debate kicks in. How should we transport our garbage? Which neighborhoods should have the facilities that process and sort our garbage -- along with the diesel-spewing trucks that transport it? How much money should the city spend to sort out recyclables and make sure they're really recycled? How far should we truck our trash?"
Except they leave out one crucial, and ultimately revolutionary variable: the elimination of food waste contamination; an elimination that could allow for the single stream collection and recycling of over 95% of the city's garbage-without the duplication of a curbside program. So, what does the GG say about food waste?
Unfortunately, what it says is mostly irrelevant and counterproductive-reflective of the environmental "mobilization of bias" that sees the elimination of food waste only through an impractically bucolic composting methodology. Here's their take on how to recycle 22% of the city's waste stream: "If New Yorkers went all out and composted food scraps and other compostables with our yard waste, up to 30 percent of the city's refuse by some counts could avoid the landfill."
This is so lame it's laughable-reminiscent of the DSNY pamphlet that describes how the NYC homeowner can use worms to better compost. This will go over real well on the East Side in the multi-million dollar co-ops, and in the housing projects of the South Bronx where the residents see quite enough wild life, than you very much. The Gazette doesn't once mention food waste disposers-the one methodology that can efficiently remove food waste, and do so by converting it into a biomass that is the functional equivalent (although more nutrient rich) of compost.
The ideal long-term plan would be to convert all of the city into a food waste disposer methodology that would gradually remove the putrescibles from the waste stream. Once removed, the remaining garbage-uncontaminated by wet waste-could be single stream collected and separated out for recycling.
The Gazette is right when it tells us: "Beyond where the trash goes and how it gets there, officials estimate it could eventually be cheaper for the city to recycle than simply dump the trash in a landfill or incinerator. The city pays $206 per ton to take away recyclable metal, glass and plastic, while it pays $167 per ton to get rid of refuse (unrecycled trash), according to the Independent Budget Office. The Independent Budget Office has concluded the cost of recycling for the city could go lower than the cost per ton for refuse if New Yorkers recycled more of their garbage."
In the long run, however, we're all dead, and if the recycling methodology isn't altered the cheaper recycling goals will never be reached. The last word here belongs to Mike Bloomberg who told the League of Conservation Voters the following when he first ran for office: "I believe that in lower density areas of the City, food waste and yard waste composting should be encouraged on a voluntary basis. In the higher density areas, the threat of vermin and a lack of storage may make composting impractical. There are alternatives. The use of food waste disposal systems has now been legalized in the City. Improvements in design of these systems minimizes the impact upon our sewer system. As long as waste treatment facilities can assure that our harbor and bay waters are not endangered by use of garbage grinders, their use should be encouraged. Efforts by private charities such as City Harvest, in cooperation with area schools, institutions and restaurants, further minimizes waste and helps those in need by delivering excess food to distribution points for those who need it."
It's time to go back to the future Mike. We can reduce the billion dollar a year boondoggle bonus to Waste Management, et al. And ultimately, if we do, the trivial siting issues that have been raised to a crucial status, precisely because the Bloombergistas have no effective garbage reduction strategy, will be relegated to a historical footnote.
These environmentalists-still imbued with the quasi-religiosity that characterized the Earth Day movement-haven't yet come up with any decent new ideas, at least ones that don't involve thrusting more responsibilities on to stores. The latest plastic bag initiative is symbolic of this mindset; there's nothing that the stores can't be required to do face of the failure of the city's curbside effort to meet the overblown expectations of the environmental advocates.
Which brings us to the current Gotham Gazette post on the subject of garbage (and the discussion by Liz). The Gothamites pose the question this way: "Your home trash sorting is a tiny piece of the city's waste management puzzle. Once it all leaves your curbside, the real debate kicks in. How should we transport our garbage? Which neighborhoods should have the facilities that process and sort our garbage -- along with the diesel-spewing trucks that transport it? How much money should the city spend to sort out recyclables and make sure they're really recycled? How far should we truck our trash?"
Except they leave out one crucial, and ultimately revolutionary variable: the elimination of food waste contamination; an elimination that could allow for the single stream collection and recycling of over 95% of the city's garbage-without the duplication of a curbside program. So, what does the GG say about food waste?
Unfortunately, what it says is mostly irrelevant and counterproductive-reflective of the environmental "mobilization of bias" that sees the elimination of food waste only through an impractically bucolic composting methodology. Here's their take on how to recycle 22% of the city's waste stream: "If New Yorkers went all out and composted food scraps and other compostables with our yard waste, up to 30 percent of the city's refuse by some counts could avoid the landfill."
This is so lame it's laughable-reminiscent of the DSNY pamphlet that describes how the NYC homeowner can use worms to better compost. This will go over real well on the East Side in the multi-million dollar co-ops, and in the housing projects of the South Bronx where the residents see quite enough wild life, than you very much. The Gazette doesn't once mention food waste disposers-the one methodology that can efficiently remove food waste, and do so by converting it into a biomass that is the functional equivalent (although more nutrient rich) of compost.
The ideal long-term plan would be to convert all of the city into a food waste disposer methodology that would gradually remove the putrescibles from the waste stream. Once removed, the remaining garbage-uncontaminated by wet waste-could be single stream collected and separated out for recycling.
The Gazette is right when it tells us: "Beyond where the trash goes and how it gets there, officials estimate it could eventually be cheaper for the city to recycle than simply dump the trash in a landfill or incinerator. The city pays $206 per ton to take away recyclable metal, glass and plastic, while it pays $167 per ton to get rid of refuse (unrecycled trash), according to the Independent Budget Office. The Independent Budget Office has concluded the cost of recycling for the city could go lower than the cost per ton for refuse if New Yorkers recycled more of their garbage."
In the long run, however, we're all dead, and if the recycling methodology isn't altered the cheaper recycling goals will never be reached. The last word here belongs to Mike Bloomberg who told the League of Conservation Voters the following when he first ran for office: "I believe that in lower density areas of the City, food waste and yard waste composting should be encouraged on a voluntary basis. In the higher density areas, the threat of vermin and a lack of storage may make composting impractical. There are alternatives. The use of food waste disposal systems has now been legalized in the City. Improvements in design of these systems minimizes the impact upon our sewer system. As long as waste treatment facilities can assure that our harbor and bay waters are not endangered by use of garbage grinders, their use should be encouraged. Efforts by private charities such as City Harvest, in cooperation with area schools, institutions and restaurants, further minimizes waste and helps those in need by delivering excess food to distribution points for those who need it."
It's time to go back to the future Mike. We can reduce the billion dollar a year boondoggle bonus to Waste Management, et al. And ultimately, if we do, the trivial siting issues that have been raised to a crucial status, precisely because the Bloombergistas have no effective garbage reduction strategy, will be relegated to a historical footnote.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Plan on the Spitz
Facing the inevitable-continuing poll plummeting and a disaster for Democrats-Governor Spitzer cashiered all of the variants of his drivers license plan for illegal immigrants. AS the NY Times reports this morning; "Gov. Eliot Spitzer is abandoning his plan to issue driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants, saying that opposition is just too overwhelming to move forward with such a policy."
Acknowledging the dismal reality-particularly after yesterday's Siena Poll came out showing the governor's approval rating looking up at Governor Pataki's worst showings-Spitzer came to realize that the light at the end of this tunnel was an oncoming train. As the NY Post observed this morning: "The decision to wave the white flag was cemented as a Siena Research Institute poll released yesterday showed Spitzer with his lowest approval ratings ever - with just 25 percent of voters saying they would support his re-election if the vote were held today."
This is a collapse of historic proportions, and it raises the question of whether or not Spitzer can ever recover from the free fall. His only saving grace is that he's got three years to rebound from this disastrous first year. Nothing in the past year, however, should give anyone confidence in his ability to do so. He's going to have to get smarter fast.
Acknowledging the dismal reality-particularly after yesterday's Siena Poll came out showing the governor's approval rating looking up at Governor Pataki's worst showings-Spitzer came to realize that the light at the end of this tunnel was an oncoming train. As the NY Post observed this morning: "The decision to wave the white flag was cemented as a Siena Research Institute poll released yesterday showed Spitzer with his lowest approval ratings ever - with just 25 percent of voters saying they would support his re-election if the vote were held today."
This is a collapse of historic proportions, and it raises the question of whether or not Spitzer can ever recover from the free fall. His only saving grace is that he's got three years to rebound from this disastrous first year. Nothing in the past year, however, should give anyone confidence in his ability to do so. He's going to have to get smarter fast.
Columbia Speedway and the LDC Speed Bump
In today's Crain's Insider the newsletter continues its coverage of the Columbia expansion plan with a report on the intervention of Charlie Rangel. Rangel, to his credit, is trying to jump start the sluggish negotiations between the West Harlem LDC and the university: "Meanwhile, Rep. Charlie Rangel has stepped into the negotiations over community benefits. He wrote a letter on behalf of the LDC, saying that the terms Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer named for his approval of the expansion—including a $20 million housing fund paid by Columbia—should be viewed as a starting point. Rangel says the Stringer agreement should not detract from the LDC’s claims about what constitutes adequate compensation for local businesses and residents."
This is promising because, absent the congressman's initiative, the rest of the area's elected officials quiescence was going to lead to very little positive for the community and the local businesses. Political will is exactly what has been missing, and Rangel's belief that the Stringer negotiated benefits should be seen as "ante," is spot on.
In the same report, Crain's speculates that the City Council could wrap up its deliberations over the CU expansion before the end of the year. While this is certainly a possibility, it makes little sense to fast track a vote before the outstanding CBA issues are resolved.
This is promising because, absent the congressman's initiative, the rest of the area's elected officials quiescence was going to lead to very little positive for the community and the local businesses. Political will is exactly what has been missing, and Rangel's belief that the Stringer negotiated benefits should be seen as "ante," is spot on.
In the same report, Crain's speculates that the City Council could wrap up its deliberations over the CU expansion before the end of the year. While this is certainly a possibility, it makes little sense to fast track a vote before the outstanding CBA issues are resolved.
Wasted Days, and Wasted Nights
As we have been speculating, the West Harlem LDC is having great difficulty coming up with a consensus on the items that it would like to see in a community benefits agreement. In yesterday's Crain's Insider, the newsletter reported that the LDC couldn't get its act together: "Discussions about a community benefits agreement as part of the Columbia University expansion have stalled because both sides are waiting for the other to initiate a
proposal, insiders say."
It's the old, "a camel is a horse put together by committee," scenario-with no strong community leadership and an LDC that is being advised by Jesse James Masyr, the proverbial fox in the chicken coop. All of which leaves the community reps on the LDC stymied: "Members of the West Harlem Local Development Corp., which represents community interests, are frustrated. One insider says they feel outdone by Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer, who won
concessions from Columbia, including a $20 million housing fund. But they don’t believe that Stringer’s pact compensates adequately for the displacement of businesses and residents."
Something, however, must give here. The LDC is being relied on to garner the kind of concessions that will allow the City Council to give the project a green light when it votes on the development shortly after the first of the year. Without the LDC's input, the Council may be left to its own creative devices-and the proposed Nick Sprayregen land swap, in exchange for a chunk of affordable housing, may just be thrust front and center as part of an overall community benefit.
proposal, insiders say."
It's the old, "a camel is a horse put together by committee," scenario-with no strong community leadership and an LDC that is being advised by Jesse James Masyr, the proverbial fox in the chicken coop. All of which leaves the community reps on the LDC stymied: "Members of the West Harlem Local Development Corp., which represents community interests, are frustrated. One insider says they feel outdone by Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer, who won
concessions from Columbia, including a $20 million housing fund. But they don’t believe that Stringer’s pact compensates adequately for the displacement of businesses and residents."
Something, however, must give here. The LDC is being relied on to garner the kind of concessions that will allow the City Council to give the project a green light when it votes on the development shortly after the first of the year. Without the LDC's input, the Council may be left to its own creative devices-and the proposed Nick Sprayregen land swap, in exchange for a chunk of affordable housing, may just be thrust front and center as part of an overall community benefit.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Governor's Masochism Tango
We just can't figure out why Governor Spitzer continues to hold on to his tarred and feathered license plan. Masochism is the only rationale we can come up with. He should, however, follow Bill Hammond's advice in the NY Daily News today, and simply cease and desist: "Gov. Spitzer should pull the plug on driver's licenses for illegal immigrants - right now. Immediately."
And, as Hammond reminds us, he should do so not only for his own sake, but for the entire Democratic party; "But now the damage is spreading, weakening every Democrat it touches, up to and including Hillary Clinton." And yet, Spitzer continues to waffle. In the NY Sun this morning, we're told that he's looking to take this issue nationally where, as incredible as it sounds, there;'s even less support for the concept of giving illegals licenses.
The governor should just stop the bleeding and do the following: "He's got to pull his plan off the table completely, so no one can pretend it's a live proposal. If he wants to save face, he can appoint a commission to study the issue and build consensus on a solution - which is what he should have done in the first place." But then again, all of the entertainment would stop and we'd be left to talk about Troopergate.
And, as Hammond reminds us, he should do so not only for his own sake, but for the entire Democratic party; "But now the damage is spreading, weakening every Democrat it touches, up to and including Hillary Clinton." And yet, Spitzer continues to waffle. In the NY Sun this morning, we're told that he's looking to take this issue nationally where, as incredible as it sounds, there;'s even less support for the concept of giving illegals licenses.
The governor should just stop the bleeding and do the following: "He's got to pull his plan off the table completely, so no one can pretend it's a live proposal. If he wants to save face, he can appoint a commission to study the issue and build consensus on a solution - which is what he should have done in the first place." But then again, all of the entertainment would stop and we'd be left to talk about Troopergate.
Unpalatable Fare
The NY Times continues to editorialize against a fare increase, blithely unaware of just how much its own arguments go a long way towards refuting the rationale for the mayor's congestion tax plan. In an ironic twist, they argue that the fare increase actually threatens the mayor's proposal, but remain clueless as to just why this is so: "The rush to a fare increase could also help to subvert Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s congestion pricing plan, which Albany must act on by the end of March. If congestion pricing — which calls for a fee to drive into parts of Manhattan — is approved, it should generate a considerable amount of money for mass transit."
What's missing here is something that the Times pointed out last summer. The congestion relief that the mayor envisions comes with a huge price tag that the expensive system he proposes will fall far short of actually covering-and, as the paper has remarked elsewhere, there's no reason to give the agency a nickel until a greater degree of transparency is attained on how the MTA is governed.
Therefore, before we do anything, a full re-organization of the transit governing system needs to be implemented. Otherwise, the continued fare-hiking, and a new congestion tax, will end up pouring money down an unaccountable black hole.
What's missing here is something that the Times pointed out last summer. The congestion relief that the mayor envisions comes with a huge price tag that the expensive system he proposes will fall far short of actually covering-and, as the paper has remarked elsewhere, there's no reason to give the agency a nickel until a greater degree of transparency is attained on how the MTA is governed.
Therefore, before we do anything, a full re-organization of the transit governing system needs to be implemented. Otherwise, the continued fare-hiking, and a new congestion tax, will end up pouring money down an unaccountable black hole.
Teacher's Pet
The news is a never ending source of amusement. In yesterday's NY Sun, the paper reported on the fact that Kathryn Wylde, noted educator and critic, had resigned from her position on a commission studying the impact of mayoral control of the schools, because the panel's creator, Public Advocate Betsy Gotbaum, was "too critical" of the Bloomberg administration's school policies.
This is the same Wylde who famously had the chutzpah to criticize Diane Ravitch, a real educational, in what appears to be a continuing effort to be the mayor's chief flack; something that's worth a lot more than $1 a year. In an understatement Ms. Wylde told the Sun: "...she also felt uncomfortable serving on a commission headed by such an outspoken critic, as she often works closely with the Bloomberg administration on school programs."
In fact, it's hard to tell where Wlyde ends and Bloomberg begins, since she is always out in front on almost all of the key Bloomberg initiatives, most lately on congestion pricing. So if the mayor has a dim view of lobbyists in general, it apparently doesn't apply to the one lobbyist who represents the most influential and wealthiest New Yorkers. This is beyond irony, and we can't wait to see the upcoming Times story on the untoward influence of big business in the Bloomberg administration (just kidding).
It all goes back to the "mobilization of bias." The status and legitimacy of the city's real estate elites is unquestioned, even when there's an over all effort to identify and minimize the role of money in city politics. So we have the silly figurine of KW, reading copy that was written for her on subjects which she has no expertise; and doing so with an air of droit du seigneur that characterizes her elevation to a hallowed position in the New York City's "Thinkery."
This is the same Wylde who famously had the chutzpah to criticize Diane Ravitch, a real educational, in what appears to be a continuing effort to be the mayor's chief flack; something that's worth a lot more than $1 a year. In an understatement Ms. Wylde told the Sun: "...she also felt uncomfortable serving on a commission headed by such an outspoken critic, as she often works closely with the Bloomberg administration on school programs."
In fact, it's hard to tell where Wlyde ends and Bloomberg begins, since she is always out in front on almost all of the key Bloomberg initiatives, most lately on congestion pricing. So if the mayor has a dim view of lobbyists in general, it apparently doesn't apply to the one lobbyist who represents the most influential and wealthiest New Yorkers. This is beyond irony, and we can't wait to see the upcoming Times story on the untoward influence of big business in the Bloomberg administration (just kidding).
It all goes back to the "mobilization of bias." The status and legitimacy of the city's real estate elites is unquestioned, even when there's an over all effort to identify and minimize the role of money in city politics. So we have the silly figurine of KW, reading copy that was written for her on subjects which she has no expertise; and doing so with an air of droit du seigneur that characterizes her elevation to a hallowed position in the New York City's "Thinkery."
Doctoroff Withdrawal
New York magazine is reporting (and Liz is citing) that Deputy Dan may be looking for a new gig, because he "wants to run his own show." The news is bound to send shock waves over at the Related Company's headquarters on Columbus Circle; after all, for the past six years it's been an open secret in city government that Related CEO Steve Ross and Deputy Dan are joined at the hip, and that the company has a favored nation status when it comes to city projects.
Probably the best example of this, is the sweetheart deal that Dan gave to Related on the site of the old Bronx Terminal Market. Without any competitive bid whatsoever, the Doctoroff beneficiary was able to "purchase" the old BTM for less than a dollar a square foot. In the process, city procurement rules were bent better than Yuri Geller bends iron; with the City Council seemingly turned to stone just like Lot's wife. In the process, the COIB rolled over and played dead concerning the Doctoroff/Ross relationship.
So, as they say, God speed to The Deputy, and the funniest line in the New York piece is the following: "...the view is that Doctoroff is waiting to wrap up Bloomberg’s congestion-pricing plan before making any decisions." Well, the fate of that venture is very much up in the air, but we guess that we're the only ones who see irony in the fact that, in just six years The Deputy has engineered more car-dependent projects than any single official post-Moses (Robert, that is); and has done so in the most asthma infested areas of the city.
So we wish Dan well, and are reminded of the Shakespearean observation: "Nothing became him so much as his leaving." The question that remains is, will anyone look back on this blatant favoritism and reconsider the lionizing of the Bloomberg tenure?
Probably the best example of this, is the sweetheart deal that Dan gave to Related on the site of the old Bronx Terminal Market. Without any competitive bid whatsoever, the Doctoroff beneficiary was able to "purchase" the old BTM for less than a dollar a square foot. In the process, city procurement rules were bent better than Yuri Geller bends iron; with the City Council seemingly turned to stone just like Lot's wife. In the process, the COIB rolled over and played dead concerning the Doctoroff/Ross relationship.
So, as they say, God speed to The Deputy, and the funniest line in the New York piece is the following: "...the view is that Doctoroff is waiting to wrap up Bloomberg’s congestion-pricing plan before making any decisions." Well, the fate of that venture is very much up in the air, but we guess that we're the only ones who see irony in the fact that, in just six years The Deputy has engineered more car-dependent projects than any single official post-Moses (Robert, that is); and has done so in the most asthma infested areas of the city.
So we wish Dan well, and are reminded of the Shakespearean observation: "Nothing became him so much as his leaving." The question that remains is, will anyone look back on this blatant favoritism and reconsider the lionizing of the Bloomberg tenure?
Affordable Housing Shortage?
In a post done by the Observer's Matt Scheurman, there's a discussion of the IBO report's focus on the ability of the Bloomberg administration to live up to its goal of creating 165,000 units of affordable housing: "...it questions whether he will be able to meet his goal of building new affordable housing, as opposed to merely preserving existing units." The report says: “Funding the remaining units to meet the plan’s new construction goals, however, may pose more of a challenge.” (than simply preserving what exists)
All of which should be of prime consideration when it comes to the review of the Columbia expansion plan by the City Council early next year-since the plan to develop 18 acres lacks any affordable housing componnent. If, as we have read, the university is willing to fund an affordable housing initiative, than the Council should insist that it be part of the expansion plan itself.
It goes without saying, then, that the swap proposal put forth by West Harlem property owner Nick Sprayregen, affords the best opportunity for the university and the Bloomberg administartion to close the current gap in the mayor's laudable affordable housing goal. Stay tuned.
All of which should be of prime consideration when it comes to the review of the Columbia expansion plan by the City Council early next year-since the plan to develop 18 acres lacks any affordable housing componnent. If, as we have read, the university is willing to fund an affordable housing initiative, than the Council should insist that it be part of the expansion plan itself.
It goes without saying, then, that the swap proposal put forth by West Harlem property owner Nick Sprayregen, affords the best opportunity for the university and the Bloomberg administartion to close the current gap in the mayor's laudable affordable housing goal. Stay tuned.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Can the Plan on Traffic
Our favorite traffic analyst, Brian Ketcham, holds court today in the NY Daily News with a trenchant critique of the mayor's congestion tax plan. That's not to say that we agree with Ketcham's own conclusions, but his analysis of the mayor's overly complex and costly scheme is right on target.
The key point of attack is on the expensive grid system that the mayor's plan proposes: "Charging cars and trucks to get into the central business district makes perfect sense - but the rest of this scheme would be a logistical nightmare. All trips would be screened and photographed, some many times, and payments and locations recorded, producing a database of great concern to the American Civil Liberties Union - but adding little revenue."
Ketcham also feels strongly that until the current mass transit funding system is fixed, the fare shouldn't be raised: "Across the city, people are fed up with traffic. And they don't want to pay more for transit until it gets better. That's why we should immediately halt the MTA fare and toll hike process so we can determine whether a simpler congestion charging plan could net a reliable $500 million a year for fares and capital improvements."
Brian's solution, the tolling of the East River bridges, is something that we believe is also unacceptable-the mass transit fix, think Rockland as well, needs to come before any new tax scheme is put in place. And any system where wealthy New Jersey commuters are paying less than middle income New Yorkers is simply not a good plan.
So when Ketcham says; "New York needs congestion pricing. But to succeed, congestion pricing itself needs to be transformed into a more sensible version of the mayor's costly, headache-prone proposal."-we say let's improve the system before the taxers are let loose.
The key point of attack is on the expensive grid system that the mayor's plan proposes: "Charging cars and trucks to get into the central business district makes perfect sense - but the rest of this scheme would be a logistical nightmare. All trips would be screened and photographed, some many times, and payments and locations recorded, producing a database of great concern to the American Civil Liberties Union - but adding little revenue."
Ketcham also feels strongly that until the current mass transit funding system is fixed, the fare shouldn't be raised: "Across the city, people are fed up with traffic. And they don't want to pay more for transit until it gets better. That's why we should immediately halt the MTA fare and toll hike process so we can determine whether a simpler congestion charging plan could net a reliable $500 million a year for fares and capital improvements."
Brian's solution, the tolling of the East River bridges, is something that we believe is also unacceptable-the mass transit fix, think Rockland as well, needs to come before any new tax scheme is put in place. And any system where wealthy New Jersey commuters are paying less than middle income New Yorkers is simply not a good plan.
So when Ketcham says; "New York needs congestion pricing. But to succeed, congestion pricing itself needs to be transformed into a more sensible version of the mayor's costly, headache-prone proposal."-we say let's improve the system before the taxers are let loose.
Driving Us Crazy at the NY Times
In yesterday's NY Times the paper did what it usually does, drive us crazy on the issue of drivers licenses for illegal immigrants. It's not that the paper consciously shills for the pro position on this issue; its more on what it chooses to focus on, and what it tends to ignore.
The story in this case was examining the impact that the governor's policy shifts on the drivers license for illegals would have on the illegals themselves. The paper, however, adds a new twist by looking at the schools that profit from the immigrant business-both legal and illegal.
Our concerns here are not so much with the story itself, a piece that we found both informative and balanced. One driving school owner made the following well-reasoned point: “Of course it’ll be good from a business point of view,” said Mr. Iqbal, whose customers are from Pakistan, India and Eastern Europe, among other places. “And I understand the advantages: Now we can identify a person — if someone is living here with no ID, then we know who he is. But we have to make sure these IDs would not be abused. If they’re lenient about issuing them, one person can have multiple licenses.”
So, from Mr. Iqbal-and more so than from the NY Times Editorial Board- we get the idea that there needs to be some care taken before we proceed in this area. He even alerts us to the security issue by describing the lively trafficking in phony IDs.
We also get a sense that many illegals don't approve the governor's amended plan because they'd rather continue to stay below the government radar. As one legal immigrant told the Times about one of his illegal relatives: "Mr. Chavez said his cousin Pablo would rather not risk the scrutiny that holding Mr. Spitzer’s limited license might expose him to. “He’d rather stay as he is now,” said Mr. Chavez, 21. “He doesn’t want to be in a government database.”
So we like the Times story. What we're concerned with, as we've said, is the things that the paper chooses to focus on, and what it ignores. There's nothing wrong with yesterday's story; it explores the impact of government policy on a group that's most personally impacted. But where's the story on the 77% of Americans-and 72% of New Yorkers- who think that the NY governor is daft?
Many years ago, the political scientists Bachrach and Baratz wrote about "decisions," and "non-decisions." They were examining the ways in which local governmental power structures make policy. What they found was that it was often more significant to ignore the decisions made by the locality, and instead focus on those issues and policy areas that were ignored so that they never even made it to the larger policy-making agenda.
The so-called non-decisions were generally not considered because of a certain "mobilization of bias" in the locality, a conforming ideology that unconsciously hid certain issues from view. And so it goes with the NY Times. The average New Yorker's views on the drivers license question get shuffled aside for the more compelling-in the paper's worldview-look at the angst of the dispossessed. The end result is a one-sided coverage of an important issue.
The story in this case was examining the impact that the governor's policy shifts on the drivers license for illegals would have on the illegals themselves. The paper, however, adds a new twist by looking at the schools that profit from the immigrant business-both legal and illegal.
Our concerns here are not so much with the story itself, a piece that we found both informative and balanced. One driving school owner made the following well-reasoned point: “Of course it’ll be good from a business point of view,” said Mr. Iqbal, whose customers are from Pakistan, India and Eastern Europe, among other places. “And I understand the advantages: Now we can identify a person — if someone is living here with no ID, then we know who he is. But we have to make sure these IDs would not be abused. If they’re lenient about issuing them, one person can have multiple licenses.”
So, from Mr. Iqbal-and more so than from the NY Times Editorial Board- we get the idea that there needs to be some care taken before we proceed in this area. He even alerts us to the security issue by describing the lively trafficking in phony IDs.
We also get a sense that many illegals don't approve the governor's amended plan because they'd rather continue to stay below the government radar. As one legal immigrant told the Times about one of his illegal relatives: "Mr. Chavez said his cousin Pablo would rather not risk the scrutiny that holding Mr. Spitzer’s limited license might expose him to. “He’d rather stay as he is now,” said Mr. Chavez, 21. “He doesn’t want to be in a government database.”
So we like the Times story. What we're concerned with, as we've said, is the things that the paper chooses to focus on, and what it ignores. There's nothing wrong with yesterday's story; it explores the impact of government policy on a group that's most personally impacted. But where's the story on the 77% of Americans-and 72% of New Yorkers- who think that the NY governor is daft?
Many years ago, the political scientists Bachrach and Baratz wrote about "decisions," and "non-decisions." They were examining the ways in which local governmental power structures make policy. What they found was that it was often more significant to ignore the decisions made by the locality, and instead focus on those issues and policy areas that were ignored so that they never even made it to the larger policy-making agenda.
The so-called non-decisions were generally not considered because of a certain "mobilization of bias" in the locality, a conforming ideology that unconsciously hid certain issues from view. And so it goes with the NY Times. The average New Yorker's views on the drivers license question get shuffled aside for the more compelling-in the paper's worldview-look at the angst of the dispossessed. The end result is a one-sided coverage of an important issue.
Food Co-optation
There's an interesting story on a new Bronx food co-op in yesterday's NY Times. The story highlights some of the on-going discussions about the importance-and availability-of fresh fruit and vegetables in the city's low income neighborhoods.
Here are the comments of Zena Nelson, the founder of the food venture: "Ms. Nelson had noticed, with some annoyance, the success of large marketers, like Whole Foods Market, in selling organic foods to an affluent clientele. “Why is it that people with higher incomes were able to buy better food at lower prices,” she exclaimed, “but people with lower incomes were buying worse food at higher prices? This is stupid!” We're really not sure just what world Ms. Nelson's living in, but we're quite sure that her understanding of marketing and the economics of food distribution and retailing needs bolstering.
First of all, Whole Foods ain't discounting to anyone, and the chain's price structure would insure that any store it opened up in a low income area would be doomed to failure-on price alone. Secondly, in spite of Ms. Nelson's belief that there's a huge market for good organic produce in these neighborhoods (“Some people say poor people are not going to buy organic,” she said. “But many poor people are from Africa or the Caribbean or Latin America. Most of their grandparents grew up on farms."), the fact remains that for whatever reason the demand for fresh fruit and vegetables of all kinds is low in these areas, a fact that will make the products both scarce as well as expensive.
The key, as always in our economic system, rests with generating the kind of demand that will eventually lead to the availability of good produce at reasonable prices. This is something that we don't hear any discussion of in the NY Times, a paper that hasn't done a single, non-demonizing, article on the economics of food retailing in low income areas in the past twenty years. All we hear about is the lack, the insufficiency, and the poor quality of the stores-both bodegas and supermarkets-in low-income neighborhoods.
So instead of focusing on the realities of the market-and, yes, the amazing economic success stories involving a whole class of immigrant entrepreneurs-we get a new age romanticizing of a non-capitalist business. Why not focus on how to use the existing distribution network to increase both the supply of, and demand for, fresh produce? Now that would be a positive kind of immigrant story, and we're left to wonder why the Times hasn't understood to do it.
Here are the comments of Zena Nelson, the founder of the food venture: "Ms. Nelson had noticed, with some annoyance, the success of large marketers, like Whole Foods Market, in selling organic foods to an affluent clientele. “Why is it that people with higher incomes were able to buy better food at lower prices,” she exclaimed, “but people with lower incomes were buying worse food at higher prices? This is stupid!” We're really not sure just what world Ms. Nelson's living in, but we're quite sure that her understanding of marketing and the economics of food distribution and retailing needs bolstering.
First of all, Whole Foods ain't discounting to anyone, and the chain's price structure would insure that any store it opened up in a low income area would be doomed to failure-on price alone. Secondly, in spite of Ms. Nelson's belief that there's a huge market for good organic produce in these neighborhoods (“Some people say poor people are not going to buy organic,” she said. “But many poor people are from Africa or the Caribbean or Latin America. Most of their grandparents grew up on farms."), the fact remains that for whatever reason the demand for fresh fruit and vegetables of all kinds is low in these areas, a fact that will make the products both scarce as well as expensive.
The key, as always in our economic system, rests with generating the kind of demand that will eventually lead to the availability of good produce at reasonable prices. This is something that we don't hear any discussion of in the NY Times, a paper that hasn't done a single, non-demonizing, article on the economics of food retailing in low income areas in the past twenty years. All we hear about is the lack, the insufficiency, and the poor quality of the stores-both bodegas and supermarkets-in low-income neighborhoods.
So instead of focusing on the realities of the market-and, yes, the amazing economic success stories involving a whole class of immigrant entrepreneurs-we get a new age romanticizing of a non-capitalist business. Why not focus on how to use the existing distribution network to increase both the supply of, and demand for, fresh produce? Now that would be a positive kind of immigrant story, and we're left to wonder why the Times hasn't understood to do it.
Friday, November 09, 2007
Coney Heads
The Coney Island planning process continues to amuse us-with the latest coming from Mike Clancy's post on the Runnin' Scared blog. In a further explication of the meaning of the city's announcement for the amusement area Clancy, who was first out of the box on the issue yesterday, opines that it could well mean the death knell for Thor Equities' Joe Sitt: "The upshot, two hours of Powerpoint later: Bloomberg is moving ahead with plans to revamp the amusement district, but Joe Sitt's condos-by-the-boardwalk plan is off the table—and the city plans on salting the earth to make sure things stay that way."
Perhaps, but perhaps not. As the blog points out all of this hinges on the parkland alienation process, taking currently designated parkland, de-designating it for other use; and taking land now owned by Sitt and making it parkland instead. This should not be seen as a slam dunk.
Here's the explanation of the president of the Coney Island Development Corporation, Lynn Kelly: "State legislation, explained Kelly, would be required next spring to "alienate" the parking-lot site; the city would then transmogrify the amusement district into new parkland via its ULURP land-use process." Are you beginning to see any problems here, especially considering the city's ham-handed approach to all things Albany?
And one last point. As Metro indicates, even the fans of the plan aren't totally sold on all of its features: "Dick Zigun, president of Coney Island USA, praised the city for stepping in and preserving the amusements, but he also said the plan needs some “fine tuning” regarding the type of retail the city hopes to attract and whether new buildings would be taller than the parachute jump. “Can we do what Paris does, where nothing goes higher than its national monument?” he asked."
Can we? Perhaps the better question is can we get five separate property owners to agree with the city so that the plan can go forward without the use of eminent domain, something that Doctoroff has pledged not to use. As AMNY tells us: "To make the plan work, however, three large swaths of land must be rezoned and much of the property must be acquired by the city -- including 10 acres now owned by a private developer, Thor Equities, which has its own revitalization plans for the neighborhood." This doesn't seem like a really good bet.
Perhaps, but perhaps not. As the blog points out all of this hinges on the parkland alienation process, taking currently designated parkland, de-designating it for other use; and taking land now owned by Sitt and making it parkland instead. This should not be seen as a slam dunk.
Here's the explanation of the president of the Coney Island Development Corporation, Lynn Kelly: "State legislation, explained Kelly, would be required next spring to "alienate" the parking-lot site; the city would then transmogrify the amusement district into new parkland via its ULURP land-use process." Are you beginning to see any problems here, especially considering the city's ham-handed approach to all things Albany?
And one last point. As Metro indicates, even the fans of the plan aren't totally sold on all of its features: "Dick Zigun, president of Coney Island USA, praised the city for stepping in and preserving the amusements, but he also said the plan needs some “fine tuning” regarding the type of retail the city hopes to attract and whether new buildings would be taller than the parachute jump. “Can we do what Paris does, where nothing goes higher than its national monument?” he asked."
Can we? Perhaps the better question is can we get five separate property owners to agree with the city so that the plan can go forward without the use of eminent domain, something that Doctoroff has pledged not to use. As AMNY tells us: "To make the plan work, however, three large swaths of land must be rezoned and much of the property must be acquired by the city -- including 10 acres now owned by a private developer, Thor Equities, which has its own revitalization plans for the neighborhood." This doesn't seem like a really good bet.
Coney Island: Amusing Park and Deride
The mayor has unveiled his long anticipated plan for the revitalization of Coney Island, and to say that there's a few kinks in the city's plan is probably an understatement, As the NY Times reports this morning, the plan calls for the designation of a fifteen acre parkland area that, "would create the nation’s largest urban amusement park, promote the development of stores and 4,500 apartments along Surf Avenue and preserve historic attractions like the Parachute Jump."
The proposal, if implemented, would be a dagger in the heart of Joe Sitt, the real estate developer who owns around 11 acres of land in and around the designated area. In a prepared statement, cited in the NY Daily News this morning, Sitt's company expressed its disappointment with the city's plan: "We're disappointed by the mayor's presentation, but are optimistic that a deal can be reached between the city, the land owners and the community to make Coney Island an even greater place to live and visit..."
According to Deputy Mayor Dan Doctoroff, Sitt lacks the ability to run the planned amusement facility. As the Times reports: "Mr. Doctoroff said yesterday that the city wanted to find an experienced, world-class amusement park operator to run the district, which is “a very different business than building a shopping center.”
Which sets the stage for a major confrontation, since Sitt has a number of influential political allies that would complicate any eminent domain inspired city action. Given this dynamic, and the fact that the proposal needs to be vetted by the legislature since it calls for the creation of parkland, we can't agree with Rich Calder's assessment in today's Post: "The mayor's plan for a new, 21st century Coney Island is a death knell for developer Joe Sitt's controversial, $1.5 billion proposal to build a glitzy, Vegas-style entertainment complex in the heart of the amusement district."
Hardly. With major zoning and legislative hurdles, the city's grandiosity seems to us much like all the other Coney Island dreams-visions that sit gathering dust in some room down at the Department of City Planning. We're reminded of the dust-up over the city's effort to put a recycling facility at Gansevoort on the West Side-an area that has the same parkland situation as the Coney Island area will. All of the city's huffing and puffing hasn't budged the assembly opponents of that plan, and we envision the same thing happening with the Coney Island dream.
The fact remains that Joe Sitt, and a number of other property owners, will not be sitting around wringing their hands waiting for the municipal Repo man to knock on their door. The city bulldozer will not be coming to Coney Island anytime soon; not unless the property owners are brought into a deal that they can support.
The proposal, if implemented, would be a dagger in the heart of Joe Sitt, the real estate developer who owns around 11 acres of land in and around the designated area. In a prepared statement, cited in the NY Daily News this morning, Sitt's company expressed its disappointment with the city's plan: "We're disappointed by the mayor's presentation, but are optimistic that a deal can be reached between the city, the land owners and the community to make Coney Island an even greater place to live and visit..."
According to Deputy Mayor Dan Doctoroff, Sitt lacks the ability to run the planned amusement facility. As the Times reports: "Mr. Doctoroff said yesterday that the city wanted to find an experienced, world-class amusement park operator to run the district, which is “a very different business than building a shopping center.”
Which sets the stage for a major confrontation, since Sitt has a number of influential political allies that would complicate any eminent domain inspired city action. Given this dynamic, and the fact that the proposal needs to be vetted by the legislature since it calls for the creation of parkland, we can't agree with Rich Calder's assessment in today's Post: "The mayor's plan for a new, 21st century Coney Island is a death knell for developer Joe Sitt's controversial, $1.5 billion proposal to build a glitzy, Vegas-style entertainment complex in the heart of the amusement district."
Hardly. With major zoning and legislative hurdles, the city's grandiosity seems to us much like all the other Coney Island dreams-visions that sit gathering dust in some room down at the Department of City Planning. We're reminded of the dust-up over the city's effort to put a recycling facility at Gansevoort on the West Side-an area that has the same parkland situation as the Coney Island area will. All of the city's huffing and puffing hasn't budged the assembly opponents of that plan, and we envision the same thing happening with the Coney Island dream.
The fact remains that Joe Sitt, and a number of other property owners, will not be sitting around wringing their hands waiting for the municipal Repo man to knock on their door. The city bulldozer will not be coming to Coney Island anytime soon; not unless the property owners are brought into a deal that they can support.
Thursday, November 08, 2007
Is Wal-Mart's Trayf in Monsey?
In the Ramapo supervisor election, the incumbent, and Wal-Mart opponent, Chris St.Lawrence came away with a greater than 4,000 vote margin-mostly because of the wave of support he received from the Ramapo Orthodox community. As the Journal News reports today, the Hasidic neighborhoods voted overwhelmingly for St. Lawrence-a vote that was likely boosted by the supervisor's public announcement of his opposition to the Walmonster.
In some areas, St. Lawrence's opponent couldn't seem to buy a vote: "If democracy means that those who vote get a voice, then the voice appeared to go Tuesday to the ultra-orthodox community in and around Monsey. At one New Square polling place, Mele got one vote to St. Lawrence's 1,111, according to unofficial results. Those tallies also showed a score of 906 to zero for St. Lawrence at another New Square location."
The Orthodox community has made its opposition to Wal-Mart crystal clear, and the St. Lawrence announcement can be seen as a recognition of this political reality. In response the community delivered, and we're certainly hopeful that the newly re-elected supervisor will do the same.
In some areas, St. Lawrence's opponent couldn't seem to buy a vote: "If democracy means that those who vote get a voice, then the voice appeared to go Tuesday to the ultra-orthodox community in and around Monsey. At one New Square polling place, Mele got one vote to St. Lawrence's 1,111, according to unofficial results. Those tallies also showed a score of 906 to zero for St. Lawrence at another New Square location."
The Orthodox community has made its opposition to Wal-Mart crystal clear, and the St. Lawrence announcement can be seen as a recognition of this political reality. In response the community delivered, and we're certainly hopeful that the newly re-elected supervisor will do the same.
License Sobriety Test
The drivers license issue looks as if it might become the gift that keeps on giving-at least for a NYS Republican party looking to get off of life-supports. In today's NY Times, the paper reports on the growing fears among Congressional Democrats that the license policy can and will be held against them in next years election. As the Times puts it: "The opposition is especially strong among Democrats bracing for the prospect of tough re-election battles next year in politically moderate and conservative regions of New York; they have begun to speak out on the issue and, in many cases, have disavowed the plan."
All of which puts Governor Spitzer in the political doghouse, and makes the license advocates look kind of like Typhoid Mary: “It’s hugely unpopular,” said Representative Michael Arcuri, a first-term Democrat from central New York whom Republicans hope to defeat next year. “I don’t think it would be wise to move forward with it at this point.”
And less we forget about the cause of all of this underlying political sentiment, there's the Times story this morning on the killings in Newark-all of the suspects are in the country illegally, and a number had been arrested before, but not detained or deported because of the concerns manifested by the DMI crowd about the sensibility of the rights of illegals (has a nice oxymoronic ring to it, doesn't it?).
Here's the money quote to remind us what this fight's all about: "The $3 million bail set for Mr. Godinez included half a million dollars stemming from an outstanding arrest warrant from 2003. Mr. Godinez was accused of taking part in the violent robbery of three people outside a bar in Irvington, N.J." And, oh yes, all of these killers are believed to be members of M-13, a violent Salvadoren gang. Some economic contribution!
Update
The license issue won't only impact the congressional races. As the NY Post reports this morning, Hilllary has felt the impact of Hurricane Elliot as well, and could feel it even more if a bill being introduced by Pete King gets traction: "In a move that could put Sen. Hillary Clinton on the spot, Rep. Pete King will soon introduce a bill in Congress that would block New York and other states from providing driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. "I believe strongly that the federal government has the right to do it because illegal immigration and homeland security are federal issues," King (R-L.I.) told The Post."
And the issue has already hurt her in New Hamphshire, which prompts this from the Post editorialists: "By contrast, there's a real clarity to the licenses-for-illegals question: "Yes" is a vote for illegal immigration. "No" is a vote against it. Is that fair? Probably not. But who should expect otherwise when the issue is eligibility for a document virtually all law-abiding Americans have - and value - but that Spitzer proposes to give willy-nilly to people whose very presence in the country is a violation of the law?
It is Clinton's misfortune that her governor decided to force the issue in her home state just as the presidential race was moving to the top of the stretch."
All of which puts Governor Spitzer in the political doghouse, and makes the license advocates look kind of like Typhoid Mary: “It’s hugely unpopular,” said Representative Michael Arcuri, a first-term Democrat from central New York whom Republicans hope to defeat next year. “I don’t think it would be wise to move forward with it at this point.”
And less we forget about the cause of all of this underlying political sentiment, there's the Times story this morning on the killings in Newark-all of the suspects are in the country illegally, and a number had been arrested before, but not detained or deported because of the concerns manifested by the DMI crowd about the sensibility of the rights of illegals (has a nice oxymoronic ring to it, doesn't it?).
Here's the money quote to remind us what this fight's all about: "The $3 million bail set for Mr. Godinez included half a million dollars stemming from an outstanding arrest warrant from 2003. Mr. Godinez was accused of taking part in the violent robbery of three people outside a bar in Irvington, N.J." And, oh yes, all of these killers are believed to be members of M-13, a violent Salvadoren gang. Some economic contribution!
Update
The license issue won't only impact the congressional races. As the NY Post reports this morning, Hilllary has felt the impact of Hurricane Elliot as well, and could feel it even more if a bill being introduced by Pete King gets traction: "In a move that could put Sen. Hillary Clinton on the spot, Rep. Pete King will soon introduce a bill in Congress that would block New York and other states from providing driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. "I believe strongly that the federal government has the right to do it because illegal immigration and homeland security are federal issues," King (R-L.I.) told The Post."
And the issue has already hurt her in New Hamphshire, which prompts this from the Post editorialists: "By contrast, there's a real clarity to the licenses-for-illegals question: "Yes" is a vote for illegal immigration. "No" is a vote against it. Is that fair? Probably not. But who should expect otherwise when the issue is eligibility for a document virtually all law-abiding Americans have - and value - but that Spitzer proposes to give willy-nilly to people whose very presence in the country is a violation of the law?
It is Clinton's misfortune that her governor decided to force the issue in her home state just as the presidential race was moving to the top of the stretch."
More Licensed Poll-Axing
NY1 is reporting on its just conducted poll on Governor Spitzer's new drivers license plan. The results, while predictably revealing deep opposition to the governor's new proposal, are surprising when it comes to Latino voters: "The poll shows the majority of both Democrats and Latino voters are at odds with the licensing proposal, as are residents across the board in New York State. According to the poll, Latino voters did not like the original plan and also do not approve of the new proposal. Fifty-two percent reject it; 33 percent are in favor; and 15 percent did not respond.
What this shows is that the pandering being done by some elected officials may not be so politically astute. Latinos, most of whom are here legally, have as much resentment over giving illegals special treatment, as do any other ethnic group. In addition, the mainstream of the Democratic is resolute against this silliness as well. Only the NY Times and the DMI remain convinced, and the Democratic Party needs to be careful that these head-in-the-clouds folks don't drag them over the precipice.
What this shows is that the pandering being done by some elected officials may not be so politically astute. Latinos, most of whom are here legally, have as much resentment over giving illegals special treatment, as do any other ethnic group. In addition, the mainstream of the Democratic is resolute against this silliness as well. Only the NY Times and the DMI remain convinced, and the Democratic Party needs to be careful that these head-in-the-clouds folks don't drag them over the precipice.
Stigma!
In what has become expected from the Drum Major Institute, a group that feels that beating the drums for illegal immigrants is in the ultimate good of the country, we have another post on the drivers license scandal. In the missive, the resident documented Drummer-as tone deaf politically as one could be-calls for the governor to return to his original single tier license plan.
This advocacy comes on top of the just recently released Rassmussen Poll that shows that 77% of Americans think this is just a terrible idea. In the view of the DMI this apparently means that all of these folks, unable to understand the nuances of the issue, have been bamboozled by CNN's Lou Dobbs.
The three tiered system, a proposal that almost no one supports, is seen by the progressive policy group as the imposition of a stigma, akin to Hawthorne's scarlet letter: "By highlighting residents’ immigration status with a scarlet letter – indicated by the type of license people receive – the new proposal will give the green light to employers to treat immigrants differently based on their immigration status. Armed with this information, employers will likely continue to threaten their undocumented workers with deportation when those employees demand fair pay or complain about workplace safety violations."
So let's get this straight. It's wrong to treat illegal immigrants differently because, well, they're illegal! And what about the "demand fair pay" stuff? This all reminds us of the C. Wright Mills coined term-"crackpot rationality." In Mills' view, the term meant to treat a discussion of the implementation of means in a rational manner, in spite of the fact that an overall objective might was just plain crazy (like planning for World War Three).
In this case, the Drummers accept unquestionably the rights and the beneficence of a massive group of people who got into the country by illegal means-something that the vast majority of Americans find to be abhorrent. It comes down to a basic disrespect for the laws and sovereignty of our country; and this is without bringing in the national security and public safety concerns that this massive undocumented wave generates.
Frankly the fact that supposedly one in four illegals were fired under other tiered license systems doesn't prompt the slightest bit of rachmones, except with those people who in their hearts want two things: blanket amnesty for everyone here; and no aggressive border control policy. Where do the Drummers stand on the border fence? On the deportation of illegals arrested for a serious crime? Or any crime?
Instead we have the appeals to the economic contributions of these ghost workers. Do we believe that the country needs many of these workers? You bet we do. Yet until we get a better control over all of this, we can't start to anoint the illegals with all sorts of rights and privileges. In what country do non-citizens get rights conferred on them (we're thinking of in-state tuition breaks) that even the country's citizens don't get?
Which is why the license issue will continue to resonate-and may very well become the third rail 0f 2008. As the Washington Times remarked yesterday, "The numbers break down to 88 percent of Republicans, 75 percent of independents and even 68 percent of Democrats in opposition. Consider that last part: More than two-thirds of Democrats oppose driver's licenses for illegal aliens, even though at the recent debate, only Mr. Dodd raised his hand when NBC's Tim Russert asked which Democratic hopefuls oppose licenses for illegals. Expect to hear more from Republicans on this subject.
And expect the issue to continue to roil New York State politics next year; and watch for a Siena Poll due out shortly that looks as if it will underscore this point. The governor's actions, and the license thing is not the only misstep, have given Senate Republicans a new life-an ideological and emotional resuscitation that, while hard to quantify, will mean a renewed sense of commitment for a downtrodden party.
As Assemblyman McEneny has said (cited by Liz), the governor transformed and reinvigorated the Senate Republicans from what had become the "Ottoman Empire" of New York State; "He's actually managed to transform (Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno) from a heavy to a victim; that really takes something."
All of this goes right over the head of the bienpensants at the DMI. This time, however, the politics of the issue threatens to blow them all both out of the water and over the border.
This advocacy comes on top of the just recently released Rassmussen Poll that shows that 77% of Americans think this is just a terrible idea. In the view of the DMI this apparently means that all of these folks, unable to understand the nuances of the issue, have been bamboozled by CNN's Lou Dobbs.
The three tiered system, a proposal that almost no one supports, is seen by the progressive policy group as the imposition of a stigma, akin to Hawthorne's scarlet letter: "By highlighting residents’ immigration status with a scarlet letter – indicated by the type of license people receive – the new proposal will give the green light to employers to treat immigrants differently based on their immigration status. Armed with this information, employers will likely continue to threaten their undocumented workers with deportation when those employees demand fair pay or complain about workplace safety violations."
So let's get this straight. It's wrong to treat illegal immigrants differently because, well, they're illegal! And what about the "demand fair pay" stuff? This all reminds us of the C. Wright Mills coined term-"crackpot rationality." In Mills' view, the term meant to treat a discussion of the implementation of means in a rational manner, in spite of the fact that an overall objective might was just plain crazy (like planning for World War Three).
In this case, the Drummers accept unquestionably the rights and the beneficence of a massive group of people who got into the country by illegal means-something that the vast majority of Americans find to be abhorrent. It comes down to a basic disrespect for the laws and sovereignty of our country; and this is without bringing in the national security and public safety concerns that this massive undocumented wave generates.
Frankly the fact that supposedly one in four illegals were fired under other tiered license systems doesn't prompt the slightest bit of rachmones, except with those people who in their hearts want two things: blanket amnesty for everyone here; and no aggressive border control policy. Where do the Drummers stand on the border fence? On the deportation of illegals arrested for a serious crime? Or any crime?
Instead we have the appeals to the economic contributions of these ghost workers. Do we believe that the country needs many of these workers? You bet we do. Yet until we get a better control over all of this, we can't start to anoint the illegals with all sorts of rights and privileges. In what country do non-citizens get rights conferred on them (we're thinking of in-state tuition breaks) that even the country's citizens don't get?
Which is why the license issue will continue to resonate-and may very well become the third rail 0f 2008. As the Washington Times remarked yesterday, "The numbers break down to 88 percent of Republicans, 75 percent of independents and even 68 percent of Democrats in opposition. Consider that last part: More than two-thirds of Democrats oppose driver's licenses for illegal aliens, even though at the recent debate, only Mr. Dodd raised his hand when NBC's Tim Russert asked which Democratic hopefuls oppose licenses for illegals. Expect to hear more from Republicans on this subject.
And expect the issue to continue to roil New York State politics next year; and watch for a Siena Poll due out shortly that looks as if it will underscore this point. The governor's actions, and the license thing is not the only misstep, have given Senate Republicans a new life-an ideological and emotional resuscitation that, while hard to quantify, will mean a renewed sense of commitment for a downtrodden party.
As Assemblyman McEneny has said (cited by Liz), the governor transformed and reinvigorated the Senate Republicans from what had become the "Ottoman Empire" of New York State; "He's actually managed to transform (Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno) from a heavy to a victim; that really takes something."
All of this goes right over the head of the bienpensants at the DMI. This time, however, the politics of the issue threatens to blow them all both out of the water and over the border.
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Sic Transit Dinero
In our previous post we commented on the confusion surrounding the various analyses of the city's congestion problem, a confusion exacerbated by the absence of any independent review. Well, the confusion extends to the funding stream that the congestion tax is supposed to supplement. For a long time, we've been saying that we need some good accountants to examine the various funding mechanisms for mass transit, yet all we've seen so far doing the analysis, is the usual public accounting firm of Dewey, Cheatem, and Howe.
This is all further underscored by a Pete Donohue story on the far hike in this morning's NY Daily News. As the story highlights: "NYC Transit's subways and buses move 7 million riders a day - but City Hall picks up just a sliver of the cost." But why is this so? And shouldn't the city be spending more of its own money on an essential public service?
Certainly, many of the transit advocates and almost all elected officials believe this should be the case. The Straphangers Gene Russianoff makes this point: "The city needs to up its very limited funding for the subways and buses system that makes our economy possible." But, if so, why are we putting the congestion tax horse before the MTA governance and finance cart?
In addition, even proponents of the congestion tax disagree with the mayor's assumption that the levy will be sufficient to meet the capital budget needs of the transit system. All of which underscores our point here: there is so much confusion on every side of this mass transit/congestion policy debate, that to simply plow ahead blindly with the congestion tax is short sighted, and is doomed to be ineffective at achieving almost all of the stated objectives articulated by its proponents.
This is all further underscored by a Pete Donohue story on the far hike in this morning's NY Daily News. As the story highlights: "NYC Transit's subways and buses move 7 million riders a day - but City Hall picks up just a sliver of the cost." But why is this so? And shouldn't the city be spending more of its own money on an essential public service?
Certainly, many of the transit advocates and almost all elected officials believe this should be the case. The Straphangers Gene Russianoff makes this point: "The city needs to up its very limited funding for the subways and buses system that makes our economy possible." But, if so, why are we putting the congestion tax horse before the MTA governance and finance cart?
In addition, even proponents of the congestion tax disagree with the mayor's assumption that the levy will be sufficient to meet the capital budget needs of the transit system. All of which underscores our point here: there is so much confusion on every side of this mass transit/congestion policy debate, that to simply plow ahead blindly with the congestion tax is short sighted, and is doomed to be ineffective at achieving almost all of the stated objectives articulated by its proponents.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)