The Observer's Matt Scheurman does a good job at detailing the incredible outpouring of resources, garnered from extremely disparate bedfellows, that the mayor's PLaNYC has generated. As Jimmy Durante once said, "Everybody's getting into the act." The NYC Partnership, a well-known environmental advocacy group, has ponied up over a million dollars for educational outreach and expects proponents to raise close to $3 million to convince New Yorkers that the congestion tax is a good idea.
While, on the other side,"Opponents have hired Richard Lipsky, a tireless street fighter who has taken on many quixotic causes over the years..." (Hey Matt, we have one a number of these so-called quixotic battles) So what's new? As Scheurman points out, in spite of all of the hot air coming from the well-financed propaganda effort, most folks in the outer boroughs still oppose the congestion tax; and even the advocate's push poll couldn't get a majority in favor.
So it's the well-financed elites and their new found incongruous friends in the environmental community (the same folks who years ago came down to city hall in masks to protest the incinerator plan) who are pitted against the homeowners and tax payers of the city's neighborhoods. As the anti-tax spokesperson Walter McCaffrey told the Observer, "You have a message that resonates with the public, and their message is not resonating."
The one person who gets it is Speaker Silver. He alone is exhibiting the kind of skepticism that a grandiose tax plan needs to be subjected to. In fact, the whole mayoral effort reminds us of Tom Lehrer's song about National Brotherhood Week, where "Lena Horne and Sheriff Clark are dancing cheek-to-cheek..." (Clark was the infamous Southern racist lawman).
What else can we say about the Partnership, NYPIRG, REBNY, NRDC and EDF all dancing, in effect, cheek-to-cheek. The coalition assembled only serves to raise a great deal of questions about the motivations, policy goals and ulterior motives of some of the group's more powerful members. One thing is for certain: good government is at the bottom of the motivational chart.
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Health Corps Wins Support
In a recognition of the serious problems that the city has with childhood obesity and other related health illnesses, the just concluded city budget includes an allocation of $1,700,000 for the Health Corps. The initiative, modeled after the Peace Corps and spearheaded by Council Health Chair, Joel Rivera, is designed to create an activism and health awareness among city high school students. The concept is the brainchild of the famed Dr. Mehmet Oz.
With the council's support, and over a million dollars raised privately, the Health Corps will be expanding into an additional thirty high schools in the fall. Currently there are nine school programs in place from the first council grant that was allocated last year. In addition, we have had discussions with the State Senate (we are working pro bono for the program) and there is a good chance that five more high schools will be added for the upcoming school year.
The Health Corps will also be working with the DOE and there is a good chance that it will be an integral part of all of the school-based health programs. What the program offers is an active group of young people who can deliver the health message to family, friends, and the wider community.
As we have mentioned before, the HC will also be working in tandem with the DOH's "Healthy Bodega" initiative, helping to market healthier snacks in the city's grocery stores. What the initiative needs is an activist-community component that focuses in on the "demand" side of the healthier eating equation. The Health Corps is uniquely situated to do just that. As part of the community outreach effort we will be looking to partner with Mount Sinai and the East Harlem health organizations; Sinai, and the indefatigable Dr. Barbara Brenner have pioneered health outreach work in this community, and their efforts serve as a model of what should be done in this area.
With the council's support, and over a million dollars raised privately, the Health Corps will be expanding into an additional thirty high schools in the fall. Currently there are nine school programs in place from the first council grant that was allocated last year. In addition, we have had discussions with the State Senate (we are working pro bono for the program) and there is a good chance that five more high schools will be added for the upcoming school year.
The Health Corps will also be working with the DOE and there is a good chance that it will be an integral part of all of the school-based health programs. What the program offers is an active group of young people who can deliver the health message to family, friends, and the wider community.
As we have mentioned before, the HC will also be working in tandem with the DOH's "Healthy Bodega" initiative, helping to market healthier snacks in the city's grocery stores. What the initiative needs is an activist-community component that focuses in on the "demand" side of the healthier eating equation. The Health Corps is uniquely situated to do just that. As part of the community outreach effort we will be looking to partner with Mount Sinai and the East Harlem health organizations; Sinai, and the indefatigable Dr. Barbara Brenner have pioneered health outreach work in this community, and their efforts serve as a model of what should be done in this area.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
The Best Poll....
Can't say that we were shocked to find out today that a certain pollster was able to determine that, contrary to other polling data from non-biased sources, most New Yorkers really support the mayor's congestion tax. Just because it was the same firm that made millions from the mayor doing his electoral poling shouldn't tarnish the legitimacy of the effort; or should it?
It all goes along with what proponents of the plan have said all along: if they can get to pose all of the issues in a way that portrays the mayor's plan honestly (in their view), then we'll find that the people will be supportive. As a corollary to this judgement we should add: If you have enough money to structure the debate in a certain way, and the other side has much fewer resources, than the public's expressed view might actually be made to conform to the prevailing permanent government zeitgeist.
On the other hand, if the public is posed the following questions we wonder what kind of responses a pollster would get:
(1) If we can reduce congestion in the CBD without resorting to a congestion tax-by, for instance, first eliminating all of the government workers with parking permits that travel through the CBD every day, enforcing all of the double parking of limousines, and rigorously penalizing all of those motorists who block the box.Would you prefer this approach?
(2) If imposing the congestion tax is too costly to the city's economy should we look for another method to control congestion? Should we then conduct a full economic impact analysis before we impose a congestion tax?
(3) If a congestion tax system loses 40% of its revenues just to maintain its operation, is this an efficient method to raise money for mass transit? (Imagine a charity that used forty percent of its proceeds to administer its operations)
(4) If asthma rates are heavily concentrated outside of the CBD, shouldn't we be looking to address the problems in these areas before looking to reduce traffic in Midtown?
(5) If the mayor is uncertain whether or not a congestion tax will actually reduce traffic in Midtown, shouldn't we conduct a full environmental review before implementing a congestion tax?
(6) If traffic will actually be diverted to areas that have higher incidences of asthma, then shouldn't we hold off imposing the congestion tax? And isn't this possibility another reason why we need a full environmental review?
(7) The mayor says he won't impose the tax until the appropriate mass transit improvements are made. Shouldn't he be made to list all of these improvements so we can determine whether he has honestly waited for the improvements before any tax is imposed?
(8) Should the congestion tax be made to sunset if, (a) the transit improvements haven't been made; (b) congestion hasn't been reduced to any significant degree, and (c) any mayor in the future tells us that-just like in London- the tax needs to be doubled in order to be effective?
(9) The mayor claims that George Bush's federal government is waiting to give NYC $500 million if the city implements a congestion tax. Should the proposal immediately be rescinded if the money doesn't get sent to New York?
A push poll by any other name is, like the computer folks say, "garbage in, garbage out." Now the mayor and his minions are buying ad time to convince the citizens of the city that a congestion tax will lead to the cure for asthma. Frankly, we know just what Freddy Ferrer must have felt when the billionaire went on the advertising blitzkrieg. But, no mater how you slice it, it's still bologna.
It all goes along with what proponents of the plan have said all along: if they can get to pose all of the issues in a way that portrays the mayor's plan honestly (in their view), then we'll find that the people will be supportive. As a corollary to this judgement we should add: If you have enough money to structure the debate in a certain way, and the other side has much fewer resources, than the public's expressed view might actually be made to conform to the prevailing permanent government zeitgeist.
On the other hand, if the public is posed the following questions we wonder what kind of responses a pollster would get:
(1) If we can reduce congestion in the CBD without resorting to a congestion tax-by, for instance, first eliminating all of the government workers with parking permits that travel through the CBD every day, enforcing all of the double parking of limousines, and rigorously penalizing all of those motorists who block the box.Would you prefer this approach?
(2) If imposing the congestion tax is too costly to the city's economy should we look for another method to control congestion? Should we then conduct a full economic impact analysis before we impose a congestion tax?
(3) If a congestion tax system loses 40% of its revenues just to maintain its operation, is this an efficient method to raise money for mass transit? (Imagine a charity that used forty percent of its proceeds to administer its operations)
(4) If asthma rates are heavily concentrated outside of the CBD, shouldn't we be looking to address the problems in these areas before looking to reduce traffic in Midtown?
(5) If the mayor is uncertain whether or not a congestion tax will actually reduce traffic in Midtown, shouldn't we conduct a full environmental review before implementing a congestion tax?
(6) If traffic will actually be diverted to areas that have higher incidences of asthma, then shouldn't we hold off imposing the congestion tax? And isn't this possibility another reason why we need a full environmental review?
(7) The mayor says he won't impose the tax until the appropriate mass transit improvements are made. Shouldn't he be made to list all of these improvements so we can determine whether he has honestly waited for the improvements before any tax is imposed?
(8) Should the congestion tax be made to sunset if, (a) the transit improvements haven't been made; (b) congestion hasn't been reduced to any significant degree, and (c) any mayor in the future tells us that-just like in London- the tax needs to be doubled in order to be effective?
(9) The mayor claims that George Bush's federal government is waiting to give NYC $500 million if the city implements a congestion tax. Should the proposal immediately be rescinded if the money doesn't get sent to New York?
A push poll by any other name is, like the computer folks say, "garbage in, garbage out." Now the mayor and his minions are buying ad time to convince the citizens of the city that a congestion tax will lead to the cure for asthma. Frankly, we know just what Freddy Ferrer must have felt when the billionaire went on the advertising blitzkrieg. But, no mater how you slice it, it's still bologna.
Tarnishing Silver
Our usual friends over at the NY Post are letting their animus against Speaker Shelly Silver get in the way of their good judgement. In today's paper the editorialists continue to go after Silver for his refusal to join the mayor's amen chorus on the congestion tax. They feel that his stated reasons for opposing the measure are pure smoke screen for his typical deal making predilections.
We can't read the speaker's mind, but the paper's dismissal of Shelly's stated objections to the mayor's plan is much too cavalier. And, by the way, we don't see the Post questioning the real reasons behind the mayor's born again environmentalism-after five year of mega-building that has dumped thousands of additional tons of CO2 emissions on the city.
The crux of the discussion here, as the NY Times story on Silver's objections underscores today, should be on the costs versus the benefits of the mayor's plan. This is something that only Silver has bothered to raise with the skepticism that it deserves. After all we have a tax, ostensibly designed to raise money for mass transit, of which 40% of what is generated in revenues will be siphoned off to administer the compliance system.
If this was a charity all of its officers would be carted off to jail! Isn't there a more effective way to raise funds? Of the $620 million in projected proceeds, almost $300 million goes to administration. And by the time the mayor gets through promising the proceeds to various elected officials-yesterday it was for new Metro North stations in the Bronx, the congestion tax bank account will be seriously overdrawn.
And what about the air quality argument? The traffic reduction foreseen in the plan is so minute that it will reduce emissions in the city by about 0.4% Is this enough to justify the negative business impacts that have been estimated to be close to $690 million a year? Oh, we forgot, no one has even bothered to do the economic impact analysis-not in New York, or even in London where after 4 years there is no definitive analysis of the congestion plan's hit on local businesses.
So the speaker is correct. There are many unanswered questions her, and we expect the Post to exercise a greater degree of caution when elected officials are looking to rifle through our wallets. So please, leave the Silver bashing aside and concentrate on the significant flaws in a grandiose scheme, one concocted to launch the mayor on some kind of quixotic national crusade.
We can't read the speaker's mind, but the paper's dismissal of Shelly's stated objections to the mayor's plan is much too cavalier. And, by the way, we don't see the Post questioning the real reasons behind the mayor's born again environmentalism-after five year of mega-building that has dumped thousands of additional tons of CO2 emissions on the city.
The crux of the discussion here, as the NY Times story on Silver's objections underscores today, should be on the costs versus the benefits of the mayor's plan. This is something that only Silver has bothered to raise with the skepticism that it deserves. After all we have a tax, ostensibly designed to raise money for mass transit, of which 40% of what is generated in revenues will be siphoned off to administer the compliance system.
If this was a charity all of its officers would be carted off to jail! Isn't there a more effective way to raise funds? Of the $620 million in projected proceeds, almost $300 million goes to administration. And by the time the mayor gets through promising the proceeds to various elected officials-yesterday it was for new Metro North stations in the Bronx, the congestion tax bank account will be seriously overdrawn.
And what about the air quality argument? The traffic reduction foreseen in the plan is so minute that it will reduce emissions in the city by about 0.4% Is this enough to justify the negative business impacts that have been estimated to be close to $690 million a year? Oh, we forgot, no one has even bothered to do the economic impact analysis-not in New York, or even in London where after 4 years there is no definitive analysis of the congestion plan's hit on local businesses.
So the speaker is correct. There are many unanswered questions her, and we expect the Post to exercise a greater degree of caution when elected officials are looking to rifle through our wallets. So please, leave the Silver bashing aside and concentrate on the significant flaws in a grandiose scheme, one concocted to launch the mayor on some kind of quixotic national crusade.
Monday, June 11, 2007
Hi, Ho, Silver!
Danny Hakim is reporting in today's Empire Zone blog that Speaker Shelly Silver is still very uncertain about the efficacy of the entire congestion pricing scheme. The money quote from Shelly: "So as I said before, complex issue, it requires a great deal of study, a great deal of wisdom, in order to achieve the lofty goals that are in there." Clearly, he remains unconvinced that the plan will achieve the desired results envisioned.
What is remarkable here is the fact that Silver remains almost alone in his skepticism; and in asking all the right questions of the plan's architects. It is breathtaking to see how such a wide range of political, civic and business leaders are able to completely suspend their disbelief in their speedy leap onto the mayor's faux environmental band wagon.
To the point: Silver questions the whole "Save the Poor Black and Latino Kids from Asthma" mantra when he points out, "We do all have a desire to do something positive about the environment, about preventing children from growing up with asthma. I'm not sure that this congestion pricing hits that, since many of the neighborhoods that have children with asthma are not within the congestion-pricing zone."
Of course, he might also point out that the city has no problem with the East River Plaza Mall and the Gateway Mall-in East Harlem and the South Bronx. Both of these shopping centers will entice New Yorkers into their cars and into neighborhoods that have the highest incidences of asthma (We support East River Plaza and work for the developer, but we're not advocating the "Save the Children" hypocrisy).
As Silver goes on to highlight, there may in fact be a queuing up of cars in some of these at-risk neighborhoods, as commuters look for ways to avoid the congestion tax. Which is precisely why we have said that the whole scheme needs to be independently reviewed for both its cost as well as its efficacy at reducing congestion and greenhouse gas emissions. The only one pushing this at the highest levels is Speaker Silver. More power to him.
What is remarkable here is the fact that Silver remains almost alone in his skepticism; and in asking all the right questions of the plan's architects. It is breathtaking to see how such a wide range of political, civic and business leaders are able to completely suspend their disbelief in their speedy leap onto the mayor's faux environmental band wagon.
To the point: Silver questions the whole "Save the Poor Black and Latino Kids from Asthma" mantra when he points out, "We do all have a desire to do something positive about the environment, about preventing children from growing up with asthma. I'm not sure that this congestion pricing hits that, since many of the neighborhoods that have children with asthma are not within the congestion-pricing zone."
Of course, he might also point out that the city has no problem with the East River Plaza Mall and the Gateway Mall-in East Harlem and the South Bronx. Both of these shopping centers will entice New Yorkers into their cars and into neighborhoods that have the highest incidences of asthma (We support East River Plaza and work for the developer, but we're not advocating the "Save the Children" hypocrisy).
As Silver goes on to highlight, there may in fact be a queuing up of cars in some of these at-risk neighborhoods, as commuters look for ways to avoid the congestion tax. Which is precisely why we have said that the whole scheme needs to be independently reviewed for both its cost as well as its efficacy at reducing congestion and greenhouse gas emissions. The only one pushing this at the highest levels is Speaker Silver. More power to him.
Post Taxes Credulity
Stop the presses! In today's NY Post the paper comes out in support of the mayor's congestion tax, which has got to be a first for the news outlet that didn't even think a reduction in cancer was sufficient to support Bloomberg's "Bodega Tax" on smokes. So, how does the Post rationalize this about face? (aside from the fact that Shelly Silver is on the other side).
It does so by saying, "...the plan comes with a huge plus: It stands to throw off big bucks for desperately needed mass-transit projects." How can the paper say this with a straight face. After all, we come to depend on the Post for the kind of skepticism that laughs in the face of claims from elected officials that tax money will be dedicated to this or that specific good works project. It knows from experience how fungible tax money really is.
So why the suspension of disbelief for this tax? Especially so, when the astute Nicole Gelinas points out in the same pages of the Post today how Albany is salivating over the potential windfall; with a looming fare hike as the reason for the surge of political support for the mayor's scheme. As Gelinas indicates, "...it's hard to improve mass transit without fixing the MTA."
The Post should know better, and it apparently does when it points out that, "Make no mistake: Tolls are a tax dressed up in top hat and tails-and normally the last thing the city needs is yet another tax." The paper then goes on, however, to cry out that the city needs to fix its mass transit infrastructure, justifying this exception to the paper's tax cutting consistency.
Is the mayor's transit tax the right way to go? Does the Post really believe the following: "The Bush administration said that New York was poised to win hundreds of millions of dollars in Federal aid if then state passed the plan by August"? Apparently it does, since at the end of the editorial it outlines the risks that the money will be siphoned off, or that the costs of the system would eat up the lion's share of the revenues generated. Risks that the paper says are worth taking.
We don't think so, and we think the overwhelming majority of New Yorkers who disagree on this are right on target. As is Jacob Gershman in his op-ed in this morning's NY Sun. Gershman praises Speaker Silver and points out that he and Richard Brodsky are asking the right questions and are standing righteously in the way of the attempted mayoral stampede.
Gershman rightfully questions the euphoria over the London experience and sees the congestion tax as an ever-ratcheting upward regressive levy that will do little to relieve the congestion it's imposition is supposed to fix. He goes on to point out that this is the same mayor who dismissed all of the critics of the West Side stadium when they worried over the congestion it would generate (not to mention the malling of the city that we have been harping on).
The Post has all but forgotten the editorial that it wrote on June 3rd ("Gridlock Mike") that called on the mayor to do something first about all of the government permitted drivers clogging Manhattan streets. Gershman mentions this as well, and goes on to cite Gelinas' warning about giving more money to the dysfunctional MTA. This entire enterprise cries out for more scrutiny.
Congestion is a serious issue, but it is not a crisis that obviates the need for careful deliberation. There are not only other ways to ameliorate congestion, there are also better ways to raise money for needed mass transit. As for Bloomberg's pledge to not implement the tax until the mass transit improvements are made; well, we might have a bridge overlooking the East River that we can sell to you fairly cheaply.
It does so by saying, "...the plan comes with a huge plus: It stands to throw off big bucks for desperately needed mass-transit projects." How can the paper say this with a straight face. After all, we come to depend on the Post for the kind of skepticism that laughs in the face of claims from elected officials that tax money will be dedicated to this or that specific good works project. It knows from experience how fungible tax money really is.
So why the suspension of disbelief for this tax? Especially so, when the astute Nicole Gelinas points out in the same pages of the Post today how Albany is salivating over the potential windfall; with a looming fare hike as the reason for the surge of political support for the mayor's scheme. As Gelinas indicates, "...it's hard to improve mass transit without fixing the MTA."
The Post should know better, and it apparently does when it points out that, "Make no mistake: Tolls are a tax dressed up in top hat and tails-and normally the last thing the city needs is yet another tax." The paper then goes on, however, to cry out that the city needs to fix its mass transit infrastructure, justifying this exception to the paper's tax cutting consistency.
Is the mayor's transit tax the right way to go? Does the Post really believe the following: "The Bush administration said that New York was poised to win hundreds of millions of dollars in Federal aid if then state passed the plan by August"? Apparently it does, since at the end of the editorial it outlines the risks that the money will be siphoned off, or that the costs of the system would eat up the lion's share of the revenues generated. Risks that the paper says are worth taking.
We don't think so, and we think the overwhelming majority of New Yorkers who disagree on this are right on target. As is Jacob Gershman in his op-ed in this morning's NY Sun. Gershman praises Speaker Silver and points out that he and Richard Brodsky are asking the right questions and are standing righteously in the way of the attempted mayoral stampede.
Gershman rightfully questions the euphoria over the London experience and sees the congestion tax as an ever-ratcheting upward regressive levy that will do little to relieve the congestion it's imposition is supposed to fix. He goes on to point out that this is the same mayor who dismissed all of the critics of the West Side stadium when they worried over the congestion it would generate (not to mention the malling of the city that we have been harping on).
The Post has all but forgotten the editorial that it wrote on June 3rd ("Gridlock Mike") that called on the mayor to do something first about all of the government permitted drivers clogging Manhattan streets. Gershman mentions this as well, and goes on to cite Gelinas' warning about giving more money to the dysfunctional MTA. This entire enterprise cries out for more scrutiny.
Congestion is a serious issue, but it is not a crisis that obviates the need for careful deliberation. There are not only other ways to ameliorate congestion, there are also better ways to raise money for needed mass transit. As for Bloomberg's pledge to not implement the tax until the mass transit improvements are made; well, we might have a bridge overlooking the East River that we can sell to you fairly cheaply.
Saturday, June 09, 2007
Small Business Congested Over Mayor's Plan
Another interesting point, brought out by Andy Newman's good story in the Times this morning, was the growing small business opposition to the congestion tax. There are literally thousands of Mom and Pop distributors and contractors who are based outside of Manhattan, but who do the bulk of their business in the congestion zone. As the Times highlighted: "Small business owners who do not have the option of moving their goods by subway or during off-peak hours were particularly annoyed. Several threatened to raise their prices to cover the increased transportation expense."
Add to this mix the thousands of mid-level accountants, lawyers and other professionals who live outside of Manhattan but work in the CBD, and you have a large cohort of middle class homeowners who will once again, if the mayor's plan goes into effect, be victimized by a city hall taxing scheme. Which is why the plan needs to be put off of the mayoral fast track.
The plan must undergo a thorough and independent environmental as well as socio-economic impact analysis. As Denny Farrell told the mayor, the costs as well as the benefits need to be properly gauged, and that should be done before, not after the plan is implemented. The mayor's description of the plan as a "pilot" is simply a non-starter. It is the kind of temporary measure that reminds us of the 50 year provisional landfill the city placed at Fresh Kills. Sorry, Mike, no one's buying that one.
Add to this mix the thousands of mid-level accountants, lawyers and other professionals who live outside of Manhattan but work in the CBD, and you have a large cohort of middle class homeowners who will once again, if the mayor's plan goes into effect, be victimized by a city hall taxing scheme. Which is why the plan needs to be put off of the mayoral fast track.
The plan must undergo a thorough and independent environmental as well as socio-economic impact analysis. As Denny Farrell told the mayor, the costs as well as the benefits need to be properly gauged, and that should be done before, not after the plan is implemented. The mayor's description of the plan as a "pilot" is simply a non-starter. It is the kind of temporary measure that reminds us of the 50 year provisional landfill the city placed at Fresh Kills. Sorry, Mike, no one's buying that one.
Legislators Gridlock Congestion Plan
The reaction to yesterday's hearing on the mayor's congestion tax was, well, underwhelming. As the NY Times reports this morning, "State lawmakers gave a cordial but cool reception today to the congestion pricing plan proposed by Mayor Michael Bloomberg, asking whether it amounted to a regressive tax on middle-class and whether its costs were worth its costs were worth the promised benefits."
And in a companion piece by Andy Newman, the Times underscore what we have been emphasizing: "Outside Manhattan, Many Oppose Traffic Plan." The more people become aware of the plan's costs, the more outer borough New Yorkers are going to register their discontent. The fact that the mayor, in his testimony yesterday, admitted that the plan might not alter behavior, but will generate funds, is going to make a lot of folks upset. The money quote: "But Bloomberg said the plan is worth trying, even if it doesn't reduce traffic, just for the public transit money."
Which is exactly what most average people believe-the congestion scheme is simply another tax on middle class New Yorkers. Many of those interviewed by the Times found the idea "appalling." As the paper noted: "But it was plainly the very idea of adding yet another expense to the cost of doing business in the city that irritated those who live in New York City, even if they live a considerable distance from Manhattan."
As Assemblyman Richard Brodsky said yesterday, calling the tax "regressive," "If there's a proposal that's fairer, and that's practical, we should adopt it." Clearly, however, most of the assembly folks, reacting "skeptically" to the mayor's plan, don't think that this proposal is the one. And there is certainly no impulse to move quickly either Denny Farrell's comments are to this point: "This is not a time for haste, but for thoughtful consideration." Given all of this we kind of wonder what The Observer was seeing at yesterday's confab.
All of which should mean that Speaker Silver is in no mood to rush, and in fact the Post's Fred Dicker believes that Shelly will kill the plan, seeing it as a back door commuter tax that will hurt his members in Brooklyn and Queens particularly. All of the moaning by the Daily News editorialists on this issue won't change the perceptions of the Speaker, nor will it convince most New Yorkers that this congestion pricing tax makes sense.
And in a companion piece by Andy Newman, the Times underscore what we have been emphasizing: "Outside Manhattan, Many Oppose Traffic Plan." The more people become aware of the plan's costs, the more outer borough New Yorkers are going to register their discontent. The fact that the mayor, in his testimony yesterday, admitted that the plan might not alter behavior, but will generate funds, is going to make a lot of folks upset. The money quote: "But Bloomberg said the plan is worth trying, even if it doesn't reduce traffic, just for the public transit money."
Which is exactly what most average people believe-the congestion scheme is simply another tax on middle class New Yorkers. Many of those interviewed by the Times found the idea "appalling." As the paper noted: "But it was plainly the very idea of adding yet another expense to the cost of doing business in the city that irritated those who live in New York City, even if they live a considerable distance from Manhattan."
As Assemblyman Richard Brodsky said yesterday, calling the tax "regressive," "If there's a proposal that's fairer, and that's practical, we should adopt it." Clearly, however, most of the assembly folks, reacting "skeptically" to the mayor's plan, don't think that this proposal is the one. And there is certainly no impulse to move quickly either Denny Farrell's comments are to this point: "This is not a time for haste, but for thoughtful consideration." Given all of this we kind of wonder what The Observer was seeing at yesterday's confab.
All of which should mean that Speaker Silver is in no mood to rush, and in fact the Post's Fred Dicker believes that Shelly will kill the plan, seeing it as a back door commuter tax that will hurt his members in Brooklyn and Queens particularly. All of the moaning by the Daily News editorialists on this issue won't change the perceptions of the Speaker, nor will it convince most New Yorkers that this congestion pricing tax makes sense.
Friday, June 08, 2007
Only the People Oppose
Once again, as the Crain's poll reaffirms, the majority of New Yorkers remain opposed to the congestion pricing scheme (in spite of the shrill reaction of some to the legitimate voice of the people). The Crain's poll, made more reliable by the fact that the paper has editorially endorsed the traffic plan, doesn't break the opposition down by boroughs but finds that 55% of city residents are opposed to taxing cars and trucks below 86th Street.
What most folks realize is that the plan is little more than a taxing scheme, something that the mayor underscored in his testimony at this morning's Assembly hearings when he told the legislators that, if people's driving habits weren't changed by the fee, then at least the city would have the extra money for mass transit improvements.
But will it really? As City Journal maven Nicole Gelinas points out, once funds are generated they will become irresistable to the bloated and dysfunctional MTA bureaucracy. The MTA and the governor are bound to covet the $400 million a year revenue from congestion pricing, and the mayor's SMART authority will become a quaint memory. If this happens than the congestion tax will be diverted to keeping the fare down, and not to building up the mass transit infrastructure.
It appears, however, that Speaker Silver, along with his conference, is holding the line-for now, and it is likely that the legislature will go out of session at the end of the month without any action on this scheme. That being said, there is little doubt that the mayor, in his quest to out-Gore Al Gore, will continue to push forward. The people still don't have any real clear idea about what all of this means so it's up to the opponents to do the grass roots education.
Some of this has already begun, as yesterday's press conference highlights. The press event was well-covered on the TV side with WCBS, WNBC, WPIX, NY1, WCBS radio, and Univision all coming to the press event and interviewing the seniors who came down to NYU Medical Center with Senator Kruger. What's really interesting is a perusal of the CBS radio blog comments on the issue. They're running about 8-1 against, with most seeing the scheme as an elitist tax.
Another interesting observation is the glib manner that Bloomberg et al, talk about the available Federal money: no congestion tax, no $500 million from Washington. Does anyone believe that the Feds are going to fork over the dough to New York? Bloomberg says he won't implement the tax until the mass transit improvements are in place. If so, What's the rush?
The entire plan cries out for independent review, something that the bought-off consultants that are at the mayor's beck and call won't provide in a million years. The mayor told the Assembly hearing today that it is impossible to gauge all of the impacts until his "pilot" is in place. That sounds like a man that is desperately avoiding independent evaluation of his taxing plan. There is simply no need for unseemly haste here, and to go forward in this manner would be an expensive mistake.
What most folks realize is that the plan is little more than a taxing scheme, something that the mayor underscored in his testimony at this morning's Assembly hearings when he told the legislators that, if people's driving habits weren't changed by the fee, then at least the city would have the extra money for mass transit improvements.
But will it really? As City Journal maven Nicole Gelinas points out, once funds are generated they will become irresistable to the bloated and dysfunctional MTA bureaucracy. The MTA and the governor are bound to covet the $400 million a year revenue from congestion pricing, and the mayor's SMART authority will become a quaint memory. If this happens than the congestion tax will be diverted to keeping the fare down, and not to building up the mass transit infrastructure.
It appears, however, that Speaker Silver, along with his conference, is holding the line-for now, and it is likely that the legislature will go out of session at the end of the month without any action on this scheme. That being said, there is little doubt that the mayor, in his quest to out-Gore Al Gore, will continue to push forward. The people still don't have any real clear idea about what all of this means so it's up to the opponents to do the grass roots education.
Some of this has already begun, as yesterday's press conference highlights. The press event was well-covered on the TV side with WCBS, WNBC, WPIX, NY1, WCBS radio, and Univision all coming to the press event and interviewing the seniors who came down to NYU Medical Center with Senator Kruger. What's really interesting is a perusal of the CBS radio blog comments on the issue. They're running about 8-1 against, with most seeing the scheme as an elitist tax.
Another interesting observation is the glib manner that Bloomberg et al, talk about the available Federal money: no congestion tax, no $500 million from Washington. Does anyone believe that the Feds are going to fork over the dough to New York? Bloomberg says he won't implement the tax until the mass transit improvements are in place. If so, What's the rush?
The entire plan cries out for independent review, something that the bought-off consultants that are at the mayor's beck and call won't provide in a million years. The mayor told the Assembly hearing today that it is impossible to gauge all of the impacts until his "pilot" is in place. That sounds like a man that is desperately avoiding independent evaluation of his taxing plan. There is simply no need for unseemly haste here, and to go forward in this manner would be an expensive mistake.
Civil Liberties for Sale
One of the objections to the mayor's congestion pricing scheme is the fact that it would entail the placing of thousands of cameras on the streets. As The NY Sun reports this morning, Assemblyman Richard Brodsky sees this as an unacceptable Big Brother policy that will lead to unwanted surveillance on New Yorkers.
And civil liberties attorney Norman Siegal agrees. He sees the cameras creating a "serious and substantial" civil liberties concern. What does the NYCLU say about all of this? Well, absolutely nothing it seems, because Donna Lieberman was hiding under her desk when the Sun's Annie Karni called her for a comment. Could it be the $10,000 the organization received from the Bloomberg Foundation?
It's hard to see any other explanation since the NYCLU was screaming bloody murder last fall when Speaker Quinn proposed security cameras as part of her comprehensive night life safety bill. Now, however, Lieberman has been stricken with lock jaw, another example of the nefarious influence that Bloomberg's money plays in the city's political process.
And civil liberties attorney Norman Siegal agrees. He sees the cameras creating a "serious and substantial" civil liberties concern. What does the NYCLU say about all of this? Well, absolutely nothing it seems, because Donna Lieberman was hiding under her desk when the Sun's Annie Karni called her for a comment. Could it be the $10,000 the organization received from the Bloomberg Foundation?
It's hard to see any other explanation since the NYCLU was screaming bloody murder last fall when Speaker Quinn proposed security cameras as part of her comprehensive night life safety bill. Now, however, Lieberman has been stricken with lock jaw, another example of the nefarious influence that Bloomberg's money plays in the city's political process.
AKRF'd Up
Crain's In$ider is reporting this morning on the legal challenge brought against the ESDC for its hiring of the consulting firm AKRK. Lawyer Norman Siegal, who represents our client Tuck-it-Away, among other businesses in the footprint of the proposed Columbia University expansion, is arguing that the consultants, who are also representing Columbia in its environmental review, can't be used by the state to determine whether the area in question is "blighted."
In essence, as we have argued before, AKRF (and Columbia by extension) is getting to mark its own exam which, as Siegal points out is inappropriate because "the company can't serve two masters." AKRF's argument that, "there is no conflict because the projects are being handled by two different departments in the planning firm," simply fails the laugh test.
It does, however, in a dramatically glaring fashion underscore what the Manhattan Institute has astutely pointed out about the entire ULURP charade: these consultants are in the tank and can't be depended on for any kind of honest evaluation. Which is another reason why communities are so cynical about the entire phony environmental process.
The environment has nothing to do with any of the outcomes in these land use fights. The review process is pure Kabuki theater and is designed to make believe there is a community consultation. The process, inherently political, needs to be changed so that local neighborhoods that are going to be impacted can have a bigger voice in the outcome.
Which is precisely the point that Councilman Garodnick makes in this morning's NY Post. "Disputes on proposals intensify because communities don't have a chance to share their vision until it's too late. On the Columbia University redevelopment, for one, the local community board chair recently said: 'On a scale of 1 to 10 Columbia is a minus five in terms of trust.'" Garodnick calls for a process that includes the community early on, and points to a project on the East Side that does just that. He goes on to say that, "With communities in the lead, development's future could be one of collaboration-not recrimination."
Which is precisely why the Columbia expansion plan is so flawed. There has been collaboration; perhaps the demographics of West Harlem differentiate it from the East Side and obviate the need to really look to partner with "those people." In any case, the AKRF boondoggle only serves to accentuate that stench that is arising uptown, as the "progressive" forces of Columbia University look to reach out to West Harlem and teach the community its own kind of civics lesson.
In essence, as we have argued before, AKRF (and Columbia by extension) is getting to mark its own exam which, as Siegal points out is inappropriate because "the company can't serve two masters." AKRF's argument that, "there is no conflict because the projects are being handled by two different departments in the planning firm," simply fails the laugh test.
It does, however, in a dramatically glaring fashion underscore what the Manhattan Institute has astutely pointed out about the entire ULURP charade: these consultants are in the tank and can't be depended on for any kind of honest evaluation. Which is another reason why communities are so cynical about the entire phony environmental process.
The environment has nothing to do with any of the outcomes in these land use fights. The review process is pure Kabuki theater and is designed to make believe there is a community consultation. The process, inherently political, needs to be changed so that local neighborhoods that are going to be impacted can have a bigger voice in the outcome.
Which is precisely the point that Councilman Garodnick makes in this morning's NY Post. "Disputes on proposals intensify because communities don't have a chance to share their vision until it's too late. On the Columbia University redevelopment, for one, the local community board chair recently said: 'On a scale of 1 to 10 Columbia is a minus five in terms of trust.'" Garodnick calls for a process that includes the community early on, and points to a project on the East Side that does just that. He goes on to say that, "With communities in the lead, development's future could be one of collaboration-not recrimination."
Which is precisely why the Columbia expansion plan is so flawed. There has been collaboration; perhaps the demographics of West Harlem differentiate it from the East Side and obviate the need to really look to partner with "those people." In any case, the AKRF boondoggle only serves to accentuate that stench that is arising uptown, as the "progressive" forces of Columbia University look to reach out to West Harlem and teach the community its own kind of civics lesson.
Thursday, June 07, 2007
Campaign Finagaling
The NY Post, in commenting on the recently introduced "campaign finance reform," hits the nail right on the head: it's no reform at all. The Post is in fact following the lead of the NY Sun which pretty much said the same thing in its editorial yesterday. The reason for the demurrals is the fact that the bill specifically excludes labor from the restrictions that are unilaterally imposed on businesses.
This is flat out ridiculous as a reform measure. Anyone who lobbies in the city knows full well that labor has a tremendous influence over the course of legislation. And as someone who represents both businesses and labor I have had this factor work to my favor at times, while at other moments it has been an obstacle.
The fact remains that labor is an interest just like any other, and to place it in a sacrosanct position is to skew the legislative process; to the disadvantage of smaller, minority-owned businesses. The bill is flawed and should be either amended to include everyone, or it should be defeated.
This is flat out ridiculous as a reform measure. Anyone who lobbies in the city knows full well that labor has a tremendous influence over the course of legislation. And as someone who represents both businesses and labor I have had this factor work to my favor at times, while at other moments it has been an obstacle.
The fact remains that labor is an interest just like any other, and to place it in a sacrosanct position is to skew the legislative process; to the disadvantage of smaller, minority-owned businesses. The bill is flawed and should be either amended to include everyone, or it should be defeated.
Clogging Arteries
The Committee to Keep NYC Congestion Tax Free will be holding a press conference today at 2:30 in front of NYU Medical Center on 1st Avenue. As the Committee's press release points out, the event will be featuring Councilman David Weprin and State Senator Carl Kruger, as well as Queens Civic Congress transportation chairman James Trent. Joining the three, since the focus of the press conference is on the cost to seniors of the proposed congestion tax, will be a contingent of 40 seniors from Brooklyn and Queens.
The press conference, held as it is on the eve of Assembly hearings on the congestion tax proposal, is designed to demonstrate that in spite of all of the money being poured into the pro-tax effort, the majority of New Yorkers think that the plan is a bad idea. As Councilman Weprin says, "The administration seems not to recognize that a large majority of people must drive into Manhattan and lack a mass transit option."
In typical Wimpy fashion, however, the administration wants folks to pony up the tax before any mass transit improvements are made (hence the Wimpy allusion: "I'd gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today"). This is not a good deal for tax payers, nor is any bargain for anyone living outside of Manhattan. It does appear, however, that many in the Assembly aren't prepared to drink the Kool-Aid on this just yet
Even putative supporters have some major problems with the congestion tax formula. As El Diario said yesterday, "...congestion pricing should {only} move forward with some conditions." And what are these? Well, we need to make sure that neighborhoods like East Harlem do not become a drop-off point for commuters, since this neighborhood has the highest asthma rates in the city.
Yet,here's the rub. Since there is no EIS or concomitant traffic analysis, we just can't be sure that traffic will not either be diverted into, or built up in, East Harlem as well as in other contiguous neighborhoods outside of the zone boundaries. Without theses assurances, and ant traffic analysis should be done by folks who aren't somehow beholden to the mayor or to his administration.
Which all points to the need to slow this process up and devise a methodology for examining all of the potential flaws in the mayor's proposal. This is why, as Channel 2's Marcia Kramer pointed out last night, Governor Spitzer wants to give this idea more time to be properly vetted. As Kramer told her viewers, "Sources told CBS 2 the governor supports the program in theory, but thinks there may be too many unanswered questions to pass the bill in the next few weeks."
Or the next few months for that matter. As Senator Kruger says, "It took London four years to implement its plan and work out the kinks." There are just too many folks (like those at the NY Dail News) ready to buy this pig in a poke, people who have not closely examined the plan's flaws but are all full speed ahead for reasons that transcend pure environmental dedication.
The press conference, held as it is on the eve of Assembly hearings on the congestion tax proposal, is designed to demonstrate that in spite of all of the money being poured into the pro-tax effort, the majority of New Yorkers think that the plan is a bad idea. As Councilman Weprin says, "The administration seems not to recognize that a large majority of people must drive into Manhattan and lack a mass transit option."
In typical Wimpy fashion, however, the administration wants folks to pony up the tax before any mass transit improvements are made (hence the Wimpy allusion: "I'd gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today"). This is not a good deal for tax payers, nor is any bargain for anyone living outside of Manhattan. It does appear, however, that many in the Assembly aren't prepared to drink the Kool-Aid on this just yet
Even putative supporters have some major problems with the congestion tax formula. As El Diario said yesterday, "...congestion pricing should {only} move forward with some conditions." And what are these? Well, we need to make sure that neighborhoods like East Harlem do not become a drop-off point for commuters, since this neighborhood has the highest asthma rates in the city.
Yet,here's the rub. Since there is no EIS or concomitant traffic analysis, we just can't be sure that traffic will not either be diverted into, or built up in, East Harlem as well as in other contiguous neighborhoods outside of the zone boundaries. Without theses assurances, and ant traffic analysis should be done by folks who aren't somehow beholden to the mayor or to his administration.
Which all points to the need to slow this process up and devise a methodology for examining all of the potential flaws in the mayor's proposal. This is why, as Channel 2's Marcia Kramer pointed out last night, Governor Spitzer wants to give this idea more time to be properly vetted. As Kramer told her viewers, "Sources told CBS 2 the governor supports the program in theory, but thinks there may be too many unanswered questions to pass the bill in the next few weeks."
Or the next few months for that matter. As Senator Kruger says, "It took London four years to implement its plan and work out the kinks." There are just too many folks (like those at the NY Dail News) ready to buy this pig in a poke, people who have not closely examined the plan's flaws but are all full speed ahead for reasons that transcend pure environmental dedication.
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
Council's Slim-Fast
City Council Health Chair Joel Rivera held a press conference on the steps of City Hall yesterday to announce his $6 million funding initiative to combat childhood obesity. Joined by Dr. Mehmet Oz, the founder of the innovative Health Corps, and other health advocates, Rivera told the gathering that the small allocations being requested today would save the city untold future millions in health care costs.
This sentiment was echoed by Dr. Oz, who described how he has started doing heart bypass operations on twenty five year olds. As he told Metro New York, "Fighting obesity is not just a weight issue. It's our nation mortgaging our future." Joining Rivera at the press conference were council members White, Monseratte, Vallone, Gentile and Vacca. Monseratte, who has already lost twenty five pounds, pledged to lose another twenty, while White pledged to lose a more modest five pounds. All came out strongly in support of the initiative.
The $6 million request will be decided in the coming weeks as council budget negotiations conclude toward the end of the month. The Health Corps, looking to expand into more than thirty schools in the fall, has been discussing collaboration with the Department of Education on as number of its school-based health initiatives.
Dr. Roger Platt, who is the liaison between the DOE and the Health Department sees the HC as a perfect vehicle to advance these health policies through the creation of an activist student cadre that will promote healthier living to their peers as well as into the community. It is hoped that the Bloomberg administration will agree to match any coucnil allocation for this exciting and innovative approach to the hearts and minds side of the health issue.
This sentiment was echoed by Dr. Oz, who described how he has started doing heart bypass operations on twenty five year olds. As he told Metro New York, "Fighting obesity is not just a weight issue. It's our nation mortgaging our future." Joining Rivera at the press conference were council members White, Monseratte, Vallone, Gentile and Vacca. Monseratte, who has already lost twenty five pounds, pledged to lose another twenty, while White pledged to lose a more modest five pounds. All came out strongly in support of the initiative.
The $6 million request will be decided in the coming weeks as council budget negotiations conclude toward the end of the month. The Health Corps, looking to expand into more than thirty schools in the fall, has been discussing collaboration with the Department of Education on as number of its school-based health initiatives.
Dr. Roger Platt, who is the liaison between the DOE and the Health Department sees the HC as a perfect vehicle to advance these health policies through the creation of an activist student cadre that will promote healthier living to their peers as well as into the community. It is hoped that the Bloomberg administration will agree to match any coucnil allocation for this exciting and innovative approach to the hearts and minds side of the health issue.
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
Columbia's Rising Tide
Without a doubt, the Columbia expansion plan will be a boon to property owners around the proposed footprint of the new campus. This was brought home a few months ago when the Manhattan Institute's Julia Vitullo-Martin observed how the university's expansion would "spike" West Harlem's real estate prices.
Which is the key point that we have been making all along. The expansion will have a disparate impact on folks in the community; some of the people who are fortunate enough to own property will find that, "Columbia is going to make a whole lot of people in Harlem very happy." While others, such as Luisa Henriquez, who is one of the 400 or so tenants who will be uprooted by the expansion, will be victimized; "We do not want to be moved out...Columbia moving in is a bad thing because Columbia isn't willing to share. They want everything."
What all of this underscores is the need to mitigate through collaboration. The current Columbia plan, one that is bereft of any affordable housing, needs to be modified. There is no reason why Ms. Henriquez needs to be uprooted from her neighborhood, or why thousands of other Harlem residents should be pushed out of their apartments as rents rise post development.
In order to do this, the current application needs to be withdrawn and a plan to build affordable housing needs to be added to the proposal. We have already said that the largest property owner in the Columbia footprint is on board for this modification, and he is willing to play a major role in the housing development. The Columbia-centric plan must be held in abeyance and a better concept, one that is more West Harlem friendly, needs to be brought forth.
Which is the key point that we have been making all along. The expansion will have a disparate impact on folks in the community; some of the people who are fortunate enough to own property will find that, "Columbia is going to make a whole lot of people in Harlem very happy." While others, such as Luisa Henriquez, who is one of the 400 or so tenants who will be uprooted by the expansion, will be victimized; "We do not want to be moved out...Columbia moving in is a bad thing because Columbia isn't willing to share. They want everything."
What all of this underscores is the need to mitigate through collaboration. The current Columbia plan, one that is bereft of any affordable housing, needs to be modified. There is no reason why Ms. Henriquez needs to be uprooted from her neighborhood, or why thousands of other Harlem residents should be pushed out of their apartments as rents rise post development.
In order to do this, the current application needs to be withdrawn and a plan to build affordable housing needs to be added to the proposal. We have already said that the largest property owner in the Columbia footprint is on board for this modification, and he is willing to play a major role in the housing development. The Columbia-centric plan must be held in abeyance and a better concept, one that is more West Harlem friendly, needs to be brought forth.
REBNY Green? It Should be Red-Faced
As Liz Benjamin reports this morning the Real Estate Board has donned its traditional environmental garb and is parading in favor of the mayor's congestion pricing plan. Well, maybe traditional isn't the appropriate description of the organization's new found fondness for the greening of New York. Just the same, the entire venture reeks of hypocrisy.
It reminds us of the time, many years ago, when we were working for Assemblyman Luis Nine of the South Bronx. During this period a number of Bronx politicians decided that they would lobby, as a front for Cablevision, for their own cable franchise in the borough. The group, led by Herman Badillo, met in the hospital room of the late Bronx jefe, Ramon Velez (who had until that financially opportune moment been Herman's sworn enemy).
During the discussion, Herman started to lecture the crew about Puerto Rican pride, and how much it would mean to the group to have its own cable franchise. To which Nine, smiling, replied: "You know Herman, whenever I see you waving the Puerto Rican flag, I hold onto my wallet."
In similar fashion, the sight of REBNY waving the green banner, leads me to hold tightly to the old bill fold. Schemes like congestion pricing rarely impact the power lunch folks to any great extent; but they often take a big bite from the lunch pail crowd. It means that everyone not normally seen breakfasting at the Regency should be very afraid of the way in which the proponents of this plan are advocating its passage with such undue haste.
It reminds us of the time, many years ago, when we were working for Assemblyman Luis Nine of the South Bronx. During this period a number of Bronx politicians decided that they would lobby, as a front for Cablevision, for their own cable franchise in the borough. The group, led by Herman Badillo, met in the hospital room of the late Bronx jefe, Ramon Velez (who had until that financially opportune moment been Herman's sworn enemy).
During the discussion, Herman started to lecture the crew about Puerto Rican pride, and how much it would mean to the group to have its own cable franchise. To which Nine, smiling, replied: "You know Herman, whenever I see you waving the Puerto Rican flag, I hold onto my wallet."
In similar fashion, the sight of REBNY waving the green banner, leads me to hold tightly to the old bill fold. Schemes like congestion pricing rarely impact the power lunch folks to any great extent; but they often take a big bite from the lunch pail crowd. It means that everyone not normally seen breakfasting at the Regency should be very afraid of the way in which the proponents of this plan are advocating its passage with such undue haste.
Monday, June 04, 2007
Avoiding Speeding
The mayor has assembled a rather unusual-motley would indeed be an unfair term-coalition of supporters in support of his price congestion tax scheme. We have the usual anti-auto folks at Transportation Alternatives rubbing shoulders with the bien pensants at the NYC Partnership; and the Pooh Bah at REBNY toasting drinks with the socialist minions at NYPIRG.
Quite a crew, and certainly enough of an eclectic bunch to raise any one's suspicions about what they are up to. The NY Times' political blog is reporting that REBNY is preparing to run television commercials in support of the congestion plan, continuing, we suppose, that organization's traditionally strong support of environmental causes.
Which is why we should be extremely careful about the way in which some of the city's editorial boards are pushing to rush the mayor's plan through in the closing days of the current legislative session. Yesterday it was Newsday who urged quick action, and today we find the NY Daily News in lock-step.
Such unanimity for an idea that hasn't really been properly vetted by people who aren't already predisposed to support it, is always a dangerous situation. Especially for the tax payers who aren't really at the table when these great thoughts are being dispensed by our Philosopher King at City Hall.
What we propose is that the entire idea should be submitted to the city's ULURP process for community board and city council hearings. Let's get some of these controversial ideas in front of the public that will be forced to pay for them, and see if they can be convinced that they will be paying less with the $8 fee than they are currently, but unknowingly, paying for their current commute
After all, this putative traffic congestion relief will impact the environments of scores of neighborhoods both within and outside of the congestion price zone. Maybe its just me, but whenever big business folks start to talk about saving the environment I immediately begin to get a tight hold on my wallet.
And when editorial writers begin to cite figures directly cribbed from advocacy group press packets, then you just have to know that there is a compelling need for a great deal more scrutiny than the current PlaNYC is getting. So we say, hats off to the Assembly (holding hearings this Friday) that is taking a cautious approach to all of this saber rattling. A more careful review of congestion pricing may just reveal an alternative reality than the one that the spinmeisters are putting forth on all fronts.
Quite a crew, and certainly enough of an eclectic bunch to raise any one's suspicions about what they are up to. The NY Times' political blog is reporting that REBNY is preparing to run television commercials in support of the congestion plan, continuing, we suppose, that organization's traditionally strong support of environmental causes.
Which is why we should be extremely careful about the way in which some of the city's editorial boards are pushing to rush the mayor's plan through in the closing days of the current legislative session. Yesterday it was Newsday who urged quick action, and today we find the NY Daily News in lock-step.
Such unanimity for an idea that hasn't really been properly vetted by people who aren't already predisposed to support it, is always a dangerous situation. Especially for the tax payers who aren't really at the table when these great thoughts are being dispensed by our Philosopher King at City Hall.
What we propose is that the entire idea should be submitted to the city's ULURP process for community board and city council hearings. Let's get some of these controversial ideas in front of the public that will be forced to pay for them, and see if they can be convinced that they will be paying less with the $8 fee than they are currently, but unknowingly, paying for their current commute
After all, this putative traffic congestion relief will impact the environments of scores of neighborhoods both within and outside of the congestion price zone. Maybe its just me, but whenever big business folks start to talk about saving the environment I immediately begin to get a tight hold on my wallet.
And when editorial writers begin to cite figures directly cribbed from advocacy group press packets, then you just have to know that there is a compelling need for a great deal more scrutiny than the current PlaNYC is getting. So we say, hats off to the Assembly (holding hearings this Friday) that is taking a cautious approach to all of this saber rattling. A more careful review of congestion pricing may just reveal an alternative reality than the one that the spinmeisters are putting forth on all fronts.
Sunday, June 03, 2007
Gridlock Mike?
The NY Post editorializes today about the proliferation of government parking passes, and the contribution that the passes make to the city's traffic congestion problem. As the paper points out, "It's bad enough having the extra cars on the road, but the illegal parking can cause major tie-ups-not only wasting motorists' time, but also adding to the pollution that supposedly vexes Hizzoner so."
The Post also points out that the placardization of Manhattan, unlike his congestion pricing tax, is something that the mayor can do something about without having to wait for any legislative approval. His foot dragging on the issue, however, highlights the extent to which the administration is talking out of both sides of its mouth on the congestion tax issue.
Placards account for an additional 20,000 cars a day on the city streets and the mayor fails to act. Similarly, he continues to promote the building of malls and calls for the entry of box stores like Wal-Mart that are almost entirely auto-dependent.
If we are going to really promote sustainability, than we need a better plan than the current PlaNYC; one that looks at all of the city and not just the Manhattan that is the entirety of the Bloombergistas' vision. In order to get that plan, however, we need to defeat the current one so that we can examine PlaNYC for the flaws that it has already exhibited.
We do not need, as Newsday suggests editorially in today's paper, to rush ahead accepting the tendentious arguments of a NYC Partnership that is in the tank for the administration for clearly non-environmental reasons. And isn't it interesting that Newsday, which takes pro business stances about as often as the Times supports the Bushes, feels it can cite this one business group in support of the congestion tax. All of which makes it even more important to carefully analyze the mayor's plan, and not move forward so percipitously.
The Post also points out that the placardization of Manhattan, unlike his congestion pricing tax, is something that the mayor can do something about without having to wait for any legislative approval. His foot dragging on the issue, however, highlights the extent to which the administration is talking out of both sides of its mouth on the congestion tax issue.
Placards account for an additional 20,000 cars a day on the city streets and the mayor fails to act. Similarly, he continues to promote the building of malls and calls for the entry of box stores like Wal-Mart that are almost entirely auto-dependent.
If we are going to really promote sustainability, than we need a better plan than the current PlaNYC; one that looks at all of the city and not just the Manhattan that is the entirety of the Bloombergistas' vision. In order to get that plan, however, we need to defeat the current one so that we can examine PlaNYC for the flaws that it has already exhibited.
We do not need, as Newsday suggests editorially in today's paper, to rush ahead accepting the tendentious arguments of a NYC Partnership that is in the tank for the administration for clearly non-environmental reasons. And isn't it interesting that Newsday, which takes pro business stances about as often as the Times supports the Bushes, feels it can cite this one business group in support of the congestion tax. All of which makes it even more important to carefully analyze the mayor's plan, and not move forward so percipitously.
Columbia Wins Brownie Points
In today's NY Daily News, the paper editorializes in favor of the plan by Columbia to expand its campus into West Harlem. No shock there. After all, the paper has yet to oppose any development project anywhere in the city, and the level of community opposition or the amount of small business displacement barely makes a dent on its radar (except as fodder for ridicule).
Still, it was a bit disconcerting to read the mischaracterization of the nature of the opposition to the DCP decision to certify Columbia's land use application for a summer review by the local community board. It seems the righteous concern of the locals that the summer review process is underhanded, is seen by the News board as "a descent into the rhetorical gutter
..." Did the News, which had three reporters at Friday's press conference really convey this atmosphere back to their fearless leader at 34th Street?
Couldn't the paper take the time to fairly review and report on the letter that was sent to CPC Chairwoman Burden detailing the reasons for the community board's protest? It would have been nice since there was a Daily News blackout on the press conference itself, leaving readers of the paper to rely on a misleading and tendentious editorial for any "news" about the substance of the community protest.
The editorial goes on to tell its readers that CB#9's protest is "cynical posturing," since "Columbia has met at least forty times with community groups." And this inside information comes from whom? Did the ed board meet with anyone from the community board or the LDC to get their side concerning these wonderful in-depth negotiations?
In the end the News concludes that, "Perhaps, Columbia can do more. The way to find out is through civil negotiations rather than overheated obstructionism." That would indeed be welcome, especially by the folks whose property is about to be taken-something that the editorial somehow fails to mention.
The reality is that once the ULURP process begins meaningful negotiations are made more difficult. Columbia, which has been doing more shucking and ducking than negotiating, needed to have an agreement in principle before any land use application was submitted for certification.
The fact is that there is, as of yet, no common ground between the LDC and the university. And for the next seven months Columbia will be spending more energy on bogarting the community than working out an agreement that is fair to all of the affected stakeholders. If it does fail to negotiate in good faith, than we can expect a good deal of "overheated obstructionism" from the community, and further obscurantism from the News editorial board.
Still, it was a bit disconcerting to read the mischaracterization of the nature of the opposition to the DCP decision to certify Columbia's land use application for a summer review by the local community board. It seems the righteous concern of the locals that the summer review process is underhanded, is seen by the News board as "a descent into the rhetorical gutter
..." Did the News, which had three reporters at Friday's press conference really convey this atmosphere back to their fearless leader at 34th Street?
Couldn't the paper take the time to fairly review and report on the letter that was sent to CPC Chairwoman Burden detailing the reasons for the community board's protest? It would have been nice since there was a Daily News blackout on the press conference itself, leaving readers of the paper to rely on a misleading and tendentious editorial for any "news" about the substance of the community protest.
The editorial goes on to tell its readers that CB#9's protest is "cynical posturing," since "Columbia has met at least forty times with community groups." And this inside information comes from whom? Did the ed board meet with anyone from the community board or the LDC to get their side concerning these wonderful in-depth negotiations?
In the end the News concludes that, "Perhaps, Columbia can do more. The way to find out is through civil negotiations rather than overheated obstructionism." That would indeed be welcome, especially by the folks whose property is about to be taken-something that the editorial somehow fails to mention.
The reality is that once the ULURP process begins meaningful negotiations are made more difficult. Columbia, which has been doing more shucking and ducking than negotiating, needed to have an agreement in principle before any land use application was submitted for certification.
The fact is that there is, as of yet, no common ground between the LDC and the university. And for the next seven months Columbia will be spending more energy on bogarting the community than working out an agreement that is fair to all of the affected stakeholders. If it does fail to negotiate in good faith, than we can expect a good deal of "overheated obstructionism" from the community, and further obscurantism from the News editorial board.
Friday, June 01, 2007
Garbage Plan Rotting
The NY Times is reporting today that the city's "comprehensive" garbage disposal plan, built delicately on a number of shaky assumptions, may run afoul of Manhattan legislators who object to the siting of a recycling facility in Hudson River Park. This is certainly no shock to us since we said over a year and a half ago that the plan was likely to be stymied by state legislators with more parochial concerns than the council speaker. But, as NY1 reports, the mayor is still trying to bogart his way through the state legislaure, something that's alot harder than the city council.
It should be pointed out, however, that the failure to implement the siting aspects of the SWMP could very well mean that the entire edifice will collapse, and the mayor and the council will be back to square one. This wouldn't upset us at all, since we have said all along that the most important component of any meaningful solid waste plan is waste reduction, a component that the current waste chimera is sorely lacking.
It should be pointed out, however, that the failure to implement the siting aspects of the SWMP could very well mean that the entire edifice will collapse, and the mayor and the council will be back to square one. This wouldn't upset us at all, since we have said all along that the most important component of any meaningful solid waste plan is waste reduction, a component that the current waste chimera is sorely lacking.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
