As of five o'clock this afternoon, it looks as if Speaker Silver has snookered Mayor Mike in calling for the creation of a commission to study "all of these issues." As News4 is reporting on its website, " Assembly Democrats are concerned about how much of Manhattan would be subject to entry tolls, the amount of the tolls, creating exemptions, how parking permits will be issued outside of the zone for mass transit commuters, and other major aspects of Bloomberg's proposal."
In other words, the Assembly is concerned with every thing the mayor has laid out-and is not convinced that the plan is necessary in its current configuration. Yet Silver told the press that he believed that the commission would be sufficient to keep the city in the running for the federal dollars that the mayor has been holding out as the carrot in this well-orchestrated campaign.
Clearly, the Assembly members didn't believe the mayor that there was any hard and fast deadline that needed to be heeded; "But Silver always questioned the deadline, saying a clear agreement short of legislation likely would be good enough for the federal government."
What Silver has done here, as Sewell Chan lays out extensively in the City Room blog, is to insure that the Bloomberg plan, as well as any number of reasonable alternatives, is subjected to the fullest review possible, and from the comments of lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, it is not clear whether any congestion tax could be passed in Albany. As Richard Brodsky told News4, "'It's regressive, it's unfair to the outer boroughs, it does not necessarily do much for the air.'" Senate Minority Leader Malcolm Smith, a supporter of the mayor's, said that "he wanted changes in substantial elements of the proposal, including where parking lots will be built and how the pricing will be enforced."
All of which leaves the entire plan very much up in the air-with the congestion pricing concept threatening to become an Albany pinata; with folks from all sides looking to use the process for their own particular political advantage. From where we sit tonight, it looks like a big defeat for the mayor, but there is still time for him to emerge victorious if opponents of the congestion tax fail to mobilize properly.
Update from Liz
Shelly's not done insuring that good government prevail in the mayor's congestion tax promotional tour. As LB reports the Speaker is insisting that the City Council weigh on on whatever the commission decides through a "home rule" message. As he told the News, "'In many areas {that} Assembly members represent, the City Council members are in their district telling people or not telling people that they should urge their Assembly members to vote against it or to vote for it or just not say anything.'"
What the speaker is doing is to make council members take a stand-and not just take the mayor's largess with no electoral consequences. What this means is that outer borough members who have signed on to the mayor's plan-with the understanding that the state legislature would be making the final decision-will now have to answer to their constituents, voters who generally oppose the mayor in large majorities.
Monday, July 16, 2007
Congestion Tax: Good for Small Business?
In today's City Room blog Sewell Chan writes about the mayor's assertion that his congestion tax would be good for small business. The mayor's point was that his plan would "help retail businesses by allowing shoppers to reach commercial neighborhoods more easily."
To his credit, Chan goes on to point out that, "Of course, some small business owners are among the most fervent opponents of the plan, saying that the traffic fees will discourage shoppers from enntering some of the city's busiest neighborhoods." The mayor is simply out-to-lunch on this-and is ignoring the thousands of small contractors who make service calls in the targeted tax area.
Bloomberg's point about making some neighborhood shopping areas more accessible is simply incomprehensible. Does he really believe that more folks are going to drive into Chelsea or Chinatown, and pay the additional 8 bucks, because of a 6% decrease in congestion?
Once again, with no discernible economic impact study-and with none having been done by the Communist mayor of London-there is no way for any supporter of this tax to argue about the putative economic benefits of this taxing scheme-and certainly not when one of its key components is a truck tax that will not do a thing to relieve any traffic congestion.
To his credit, Chan goes on to point out that, "Of course, some small business owners are among the most fervent opponents of the plan, saying that the traffic fees will discourage shoppers from enntering some of the city's busiest neighborhoods." The mayor is simply out-to-lunch on this-and is ignoring the thousands of small contractors who make service calls in the targeted tax area.
Bloomberg's point about making some neighborhood shopping areas more accessible is simply incomprehensible. Does he really believe that more folks are going to drive into Chelsea or Chinatown, and pay the additional 8 bucks, because of a 6% decrease in congestion?
Once again, with no discernible economic impact study-and with none having been done by the Communist mayor of London-there is no way for any supporter of this tax to argue about the putative economic benefits of this taxing scheme-and certainly not when one of its key components is a truck tax that will not do a thing to relieve any traffic congestion.
Bloomberg and Sharpton: Perfect Together
New York Magazine is reporting (thanks for the link Liz) that there has been an unusually heated dalliance going on between the mayor and Al Sharpton. It seems that the two joined forces to advocate for the recycling center in Chelsea-using "environmental justice" as the central theme.
This goes hand-in-hand with the mayor's church-hopping yesterday on behalf of his congestion tax. In both cases the issue of environmental justice is being used by the mayor who, more and more, seems to get a kick from using the phrase. It is another reason why we are beginning to see just how much an alliance between Sharpton and Bloomberg would make sense-a relationship where allegiance is ruled by expedience, and where hypocrisy is the glue, as it is with all arranged marriages.
This goes hand-in-hand with the mayor's church-hopping yesterday on behalf of his congestion tax. In both cases the issue of environmental justice is being used by the mayor who, more and more, seems to get a kick from using the phrase. It is another reason why we are beginning to see just how much an alliance between Sharpton and Bloomberg would make sense-a relationship where allegiance is ruled by expedience, and where hypocrisy is the glue, as it is with all arranged marriages.
Hypocrisy to the Very End
In our press conference yesterday, Senator Ruben Diaz forcefully challenged the using of the health of black and Latino children as a primary rationale for the mayor's congestion tax. As the NY Times reports this morning, Diaz told the assembled media; "'Who is going to assure us that the people who are suffering from asthma are not going to be suffering more when all these residents of Westchester County start leaving their cars on their streets.'"
Diaz, whose district has one of the city's highest asthma rates, was joined by Marion Feinberg, one of the Bronx's leading fighters against asthma. He went on to say-as the Daily News reports-"Who is going to show me that the people in the South Bronx suffering from asthma will not be suffering after the mayor's plan." Diaz called for a full environmental review of the mayor's plan.
Joining with Diaz was the intrepid Councilman David Weprin, who released a study that showed that the areas with the highest incidences of asthma also had the highest mass transit riderships-another indication, as the NY Sun points out, that the attempt to make the asthma-congestion tax correlation is pure bunk. As Feinberg told AMNewYork, "Doing something about traffic congestion in Manhattan, is not really going to affect the air quality in the Bronx..."
While the so-called D-Day approaches the editorial acolytes of the mayor continue with their relentless drumbeating. Both the News and the Post focus their attention on Shelly Silver who, for his part, is not falling over for the hyperbole of the mayor's amen journalistic chorus. As he told the Post, "'The mayor is offering this {as} all things to all people, saying this proposal will raise $250 million and advertising it as paying for the Second Avenue Subway, which is a minimum $16 billion project, and keep the fare at $2...'"
Of all the editorial drumbeating it is the stance of the NY Post that causes the most consternation. That the Post should support this tax-especially the part of the plan that would impose the $21 fee on trucks-when it has stood steadfast against all of the other mayoral tax schemes, frankly mystifies us. If memory serves here, we think that the paper opposed getting more people enrolled in food stamps-even though the money was available from the Federal government and wouldn't have put any additional burden on local tax payers.
The Post also-along with the NY Sun-vehemently opposed the mayor's outrageous "Bodega tax" on cigarettes, the one that is costing local stores around $250 million a year in lost revenue. So what is driving these folks on the mayor's congestion tax? Are they the newly emerging clack for the fight against global warming? Frankly, we just can't fathom the reasoning over there.
The one question that remains here, assuming that Silver holds firm, is what will the city and state do to fight congestion? As Jacob Gershman of the NY Sun wonders; Where is plan B? What the mayor's pumped up deadline and concomitant hysteria have done is to drive any reasonable discussion of this issue-and the corollary ones about mass transit funding and the subway fare-away from the public policy table.
Silver was right to put the brakes on; now maybe-if the mayor's piques doesn't get in the way-a rational policy deliberation can take place, one that takes into consideration who will, and should, pay the bill for the ultimate rendering.
Diaz, whose district has one of the city's highest asthma rates, was joined by Marion Feinberg, one of the Bronx's leading fighters against asthma. He went on to say-as the Daily News reports-"Who is going to show me that the people in the South Bronx suffering from asthma will not be suffering after the mayor's plan." Diaz called for a full environmental review of the mayor's plan.
Joining with Diaz was the intrepid Councilman David Weprin, who released a study that showed that the areas with the highest incidences of asthma also had the highest mass transit riderships-another indication, as the NY Sun points out, that the attempt to make the asthma-congestion tax correlation is pure bunk. As Feinberg told AMNewYork, "Doing something about traffic congestion in Manhattan, is not really going to affect the air quality in the Bronx..."
While the so-called D-Day approaches the editorial acolytes of the mayor continue with their relentless drumbeating. Both the News and the Post focus their attention on Shelly Silver who, for his part, is not falling over for the hyperbole of the mayor's amen journalistic chorus. As he told the Post, "'The mayor is offering this {as} all things to all people, saying this proposal will raise $250 million and advertising it as paying for the Second Avenue Subway, which is a minimum $16 billion project, and keep the fare at $2...'"
Of all the editorial drumbeating it is the stance of the NY Post that causes the most consternation. That the Post should support this tax-especially the part of the plan that would impose the $21 fee on trucks-when it has stood steadfast against all of the other mayoral tax schemes, frankly mystifies us. If memory serves here, we think that the paper opposed getting more people enrolled in food stamps-even though the money was available from the Federal government and wouldn't have put any additional burden on local tax payers.
The Post also-along with the NY Sun-vehemently opposed the mayor's outrageous "Bodega tax" on cigarettes, the one that is costing local stores around $250 million a year in lost revenue. So what is driving these folks on the mayor's congestion tax? Are they the newly emerging clack for the fight against global warming? Frankly, we just can't fathom the reasoning over there.
The one question that remains here, assuming that Silver holds firm, is what will the city and state do to fight congestion? As Jacob Gershman of the NY Sun wonders; Where is plan B? What the mayor's pumped up deadline and concomitant hysteria have done is to drive any reasonable discussion of this issue-and the corollary ones about mass transit funding and the subway fare-away from the public policy table.
Silver was right to put the brakes on; now maybe-if the mayor's piques doesn't get in the way-a rational policy deliberation can take place, one that takes into consideration who will, and should, pay the bill for the ultimate rendering.
Sunday, July 15, 2007
Bloomberg's Last Stand
As the "deadline" for approval of his congestion tax nears, Mayor Mike, a recent convert to the Church of Gore, is making last ditch efforts to convince Shelly Silver to approve his plan to relieve congestion, receive $500 million in Federal aid, create an environmentally sustainable city, cure asthma, keep the fare at $2, and build up a decaying mass transit infrastructure. Somehow, as the NY Post is saying this morning, the troglodyte Silver is still playing the obstructionist and is standing in the way of ushering in New York's Utopian green age.
It doesn't appear likely, however, as the NY Daily News is reporting; "But Assemblyman Denny Farrell, a powerful Harlem Democrat, said there's no hope that the deal will get hashed out by tomorrow." In addition, Rockland legislators weighed in the other day voicing their opposition to the mayor's plan. As Harriet Cornel told the Journal News, "...this plan is an unfair tax on Rockland because we don't have adequate mass transit-there is no alternative for our residents." Rockland Assembly members Zebrowski and Jaffee both oppose the mayor's tax.
But Bloomberg, hot on his national political agenda building, is not giving up. And with the kind of money that the mayor is willing to spend, it is never a good idea to totally count him out.
Which is why we will be joining Senator Ruben Diaz and a group of children from East New York this morning for a press conference at City Hall.
With the mayor "hitting churches across the city to push his plan," it is important to expose his asthma charade. The fact remains that the mayor, and his hypocritical supporters at the NYC Partnership, have been building auto-dependent developments in all of the areas of the city where asthma rates are highest-and there is nothing in PlaNYC that even addresses this.
There are many things that the mayor could do to relieve the city's congestion-without resorting to a new tax. One of these measures is the restriction of city parking permits that flood all of the areas of Manhattan with automobiles driven by city workers to and from their jobs. A wonderful Op-ed in the Daily News this morning highlights this problem-one that could be eliminated with a simple executive order.
The reality is that the mayor's first response to almost any problem is to throw money at it-both his own and the tax payers'. We're hopeful that the defeat of the congestion tax will lead to a more well thought out and fairer way to deal with the city wide problem of traffic congestion. If it does, we will have to thank Shelly Silver, Richard Brodsky, Ruben Diaz, David Weprin, Rory Lancman and the irrepressible Carl Kruger for their valiant efforts on behalf of the region's tax paying auto commuters.
It doesn't appear likely, however, as the NY Daily News is reporting; "But Assemblyman Denny Farrell, a powerful Harlem Democrat, said there's no hope that the deal will get hashed out by tomorrow." In addition, Rockland legislators weighed in the other day voicing their opposition to the mayor's plan. As Harriet Cornel told the Journal News, "...this plan is an unfair tax on Rockland because we don't have adequate mass transit-there is no alternative for our residents." Rockland Assembly members Zebrowski and Jaffee both oppose the mayor's tax.
But Bloomberg, hot on his national political agenda building, is not giving up. And with the kind of money that the mayor is willing to spend, it is never a good idea to totally count him out.
Which is why we will be joining Senator Ruben Diaz and a group of children from East New York this morning for a press conference at City Hall.
With the mayor "hitting churches across the city to push his plan," it is important to expose his asthma charade. The fact remains that the mayor, and his hypocritical supporters at the NYC Partnership, have been building auto-dependent developments in all of the areas of the city where asthma rates are highest-and there is nothing in PlaNYC that even addresses this.
There are many things that the mayor could do to relieve the city's congestion-without resorting to a new tax. One of these measures is the restriction of city parking permits that flood all of the areas of Manhattan with automobiles driven by city workers to and from their jobs. A wonderful Op-ed in the Daily News this morning highlights this problem-one that could be eliminated with a simple executive order.
The reality is that the mayor's first response to almost any problem is to throw money at it-both his own and the tax payers'. We're hopeful that the defeat of the congestion tax will lead to a more well thought out and fairer way to deal with the city wide problem of traffic congestion. If it does, we will have to thank Shelly Silver, Richard Brodsky, Ruben Diaz, David Weprin, Rory Lancman and the irrepressible Carl Kruger for their valiant efforts on behalf of the region's tax paying auto commuters.
Saturday, July 14, 2007
Daily News Pops a Clutch
Of all the editorial acolytes of the mayor's Manhattan congestion tax, the NY Daily News ranks at the (over the) top in its sycophancy; and lack of any real consideration of the plan's pitfalls. The paper continues in this vein in its editorial today. Thankfully, El Diario has a more balanced approach to the issue.
The News, like so many of the other proponents, sees the congestion plan as some kind of panacea-cutting car use, improving the air, holding the subway fare down-you name it, and the mayor's plan, like the musings of some overly imaginative toddler, provides the magical thinking that will help resolve these problems. As the News says today, "These goals are critical to maintaining a livable city..."
Of course, we would all agree that these are important goals, but the question of whether the mayor's plan is the right approach to achieving the outcomes we would all desire is the real open question. It remains open because the proper due diligence has yet to be done, nor has any time been given so that alternatives can be devised that wouldn't whack middle class and working class commuters.
And, as we're beginning to see, the so-called deadline may be a ruse that was concocted by the mayor to bum rush his plan through the legislature. Certainly the tactic has worked for certain supine legislators that are beholden to the mayor's generosity; and it has been effective in creating an editorial chorus whose unanimity we should all consider suspect.
In fact, the grand coalition that supports the mayor's tax is rapidly approaching the level of farce. As the News points out, "Congestion pricing supporters range from business leaders, who see it as a way to reduce gridlock that drains billions from the economy, to the Drum Major Institute, which advocates for working families and is pushing for better transit. The Environmental Defense Fund likes the way it cuts global warming . The American Lung Association wants to get rid of smog..."
Missing are the civil rights groups who will see the congestion scheme as a way to end racism in America, and John Edwards who will soon see in the mayor's plan the silver bullet that will eliminate poverty as we know it. Soon the mayor's plan will officially become a Rorschach Test, with supporters glimpsing unfulfilled fantasies in the inkblot. As the song from Fiddler goes, "Something for everyone, a comedy tonight."
Well, as another song goes, "Come Monday, everything will be all right..;" as long as Shelly holds firm and doesn't allow the mayor to bogart him into some compromise that will only end in disaster. We're all going to stay tuned to this final installment of, "The Mayor and his Millions."
The News, like so many of the other proponents, sees the congestion plan as some kind of panacea-cutting car use, improving the air, holding the subway fare down-you name it, and the mayor's plan, like the musings of some overly imaginative toddler, provides the magical thinking that will help resolve these problems. As the News says today, "These goals are critical to maintaining a livable city..."
Of course, we would all agree that these are important goals, but the question of whether the mayor's plan is the right approach to achieving the outcomes we would all desire is the real open question. It remains open because the proper due diligence has yet to be done, nor has any time been given so that alternatives can be devised that wouldn't whack middle class and working class commuters.
And, as we're beginning to see, the so-called deadline may be a ruse that was concocted by the mayor to bum rush his plan through the legislature. Certainly the tactic has worked for certain supine legislators that are beholden to the mayor's generosity; and it has been effective in creating an editorial chorus whose unanimity we should all consider suspect.
In fact, the grand coalition that supports the mayor's tax is rapidly approaching the level of farce. As the News points out, "Congestion pricing supporters range from business leaders, who see it as a way to reduce gridlock that drains billions from the economy, to the Drum Major Institute, which advocates for working families and is pushing for better transit. The Environmental Defense Fund likes the way it cuts global warming . The American Lung Association wants to get rid of smog..."
Missing are the civil rights groups who will see the congestion scheme as a way to end racism in America, and John Edwards who will soon see in the mayor's plan the silver bullet that will eliminate poverty as we know it. Soon the mayor's plan will officially become a Rorschach Test, with supporters glimpsing unfulfilled fantasies in the inkblot. As the song from Fiddler goes, "Something for everyone, a comedy tonight."
Well, as another song goes, "Come Monday, everything will be all right..;" as long as Shelly holds firm and doesn't allow the mayor to bogart him into some compromise that will only end in disaster. We're all going to stay tuned to this final installment of, "The Mayor and his Millions."
Friday, July 13, 2007
Traffic Plan Incongestion
We've never considered to the Speaker to be heavy, but on the case of the mayor's traffic plan it appears that Silver has become the proverbial fat lady-and his singing signals that the congestion tax, in its current incarnation, may finally have met its maker. As the NY Times reports this morning, Silver will not be in Albany on Monday and will instead be convening his caucus down at 250 Broadway.
On top of all this, the Times story also underscores what we have been saying all along-the mayor's deadline is self-imposed, just like his inclusion of the congestion tax was an arbitrary provision that didn't need to be a part of the city's submission to the Feds. As Richard Brodsky told the Times, "'There is no federal deadline...What there is is a pressure tactic designed to substitute for a reasoned argument about the merits of congestion pricing. It didn't work for him on the West Side stadium, and it won't work now.'"
All of which indicates that any congestion relief plan will have to be actually negotiated with the Assembly. As Silver said, the mayor can go down one of two roads; either he can negotiate with the legislature, "'Or he can go the way he went on the stadium, and challenge people to say no to him.'"
Bravo! Some people with backbone who aren't afraid to stand up to our born again environmentalist. When all is said and done, it will become clear that there are any number of fatal flaws and premises in the mayor's plan, shortcomings that have been ignored by a fawning editorial cohort and a bunch of environmental munecos. What's indisputable in all of this is that, absent the mayor's wealth-and his willingness to use it-this plan would never have even been given the slightest consideration; and all of the mayor's cheerleaders should be ashamed of their total suspension of disbelief.
On top of all this, the Times story also underscores what we have been saying all along-the mayor's deadline is self-imposed, just like his inclusion of the congestion tax was an arbitrary provision that didn't need to be a part of the city's submission to the Feds. As Richard Brodsky told the Times, "'There is no federal deadline...What there is is a pressure tactic designed to substitute for a reasoned argument about the merits of congestion pricing. It didn't work for him on the West Side stadium, and it won't work now.'"
All of which indicates that any congestion relief plan will have to be actually negotiated with the Assembly. As Silver said, the mayor can go down one of two roads; either he can negotiate with the legislature, "'Or he can go the way he went on the stadium, and challenge people to say no to him.'"
Bravo! Some people with backbone who aren't afraid to stand up to our born again environmentalist. When all is said and done, it will become clear that there are any number of fatal flaws and premises in the mayor's plan, shortcomings that have been ignored by a fawning editorial cohort and a bunch of environmental munecos. What's indisputable in all of this is that, absent the mayor's wealth-and his willingness to use it-this plan would never have even been given the slightest consideration; and all of the mayor's cheerleaders should be ashamed of their total suspension of disbelief.
Columbia's Smoke and Mirrors
Let's get one thing straight about Columbia and its expansion plan: the university has no desire to really negotiate an agreement with the community-no matter how it is configured. That was made clear by the unanimous vote that was given the other night to the CB's 197-a plan. If a developer with Columbia's resources put any effort into wooing a community board it would have been able to garner at least some support. To us, the unanimous vote against Columbia-and that's what support for the 197-a plan indicates, signifies the fact that the university isn't even bothering to generate local support.
Instead, it is relying on its institutional muscle-and public relations gimmicks. This was witnessed by the university's seeming about face with its announcement that it would refrain from using eminent domain to evict the tenants in the low income housing on the west side of Broadway. As we pointed out to the Observer, however, this is merely an example of divide and conquer tactics-ones that seeks to divide the opposition by race and class in refusing to consider, and be proactive with, the other property owners.
What is clear here is the fact that Columbia can easily modify its plan if the will is present to do so. There is nothing written in stone and as we pointed out, "It demonstrates what we have said all along...and that is Columbia's plan can be modified and there is room for compromise." That does depend to some extent on the willingness of the elected officials to act as honest brokers.
In the body of the Columbia press release there is a quote from Councilman Jackson praising the university for its magnanimity. He goes on to say that he looks "forward to continuing to work with the University and the community to address the myriad other challenges associated with Columbia's proposed expansion." This is a good statement but it means that Jackson must start to exhibit leadership-and initiative-to insure that these "myriad" issues are properly addressed and resolved.
There is no reason why Jackson can't insist that Columbia hold face-to-face meetings with the property owners to determine whether there are ways to allow the university to expand, while simultaneously preserving property rights. Efforts in this area would mean that his office would take the lead- and not allow the WHLDC to meander along while precious time is being lost.
Instead, it is relying on its institutional muscle-and public relations gimmicks. This was witnessed by the university's seeming about face with its announcement that it would refrain from using eminent domain to evict the tenants in the low income housing on the west side of Broadway. As we pointed out to the Observer, however, this is merely an example of divide and conquer tactics-ones that seeks to divide the opposition by race and class in refusing to consider, and be proactive with, the other property owners.
What is clear here is the fact that Columbia can easily modify its plan if the will is present to do so. There is nothing written in stone and as we pointed out, "It demonstrates what we have said all along...and that is Columbia's plan can be modified and there is room for compromise." That does depend to some extent on the willingness of the elected officials to act as honest brokers.
In the body of the Columbia press release there is a quote from Councilman Jackson praising the university for its magnanimity. He goes on to say that he looks "forward to continuing to work with the University and the community to address the myriad other challenges associated with Columbia's proposed expansion." This is a good statement but it means that Jackson must start to exhibit leadership-and initiative-to insure that these "myriad" issues are properly addressed and resolved.
There is no reason why Jackson can't insist that Columbia hold face-to-face meetings with the property owners to determine whether there are ways to allow the university to expand, while simultaneously preserving property rights. Efforts in this area would mean that his office would take the lead- and not allow the WHLDC to meander along while precious time is being lost.
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Columbia Slam-Dunked
In what has to be considered an enormous slap in the face, and a further indication of the depth of community antagonism to the Columbia expansion proposal, CB#9's land use committee unanimously approved an alternative proposal for the 18 acres that the university is looking to expand into. As the Columbia Spectator reports, "Over 400 CB9 members, West Harlem business owners and residents, Columbia students, and locally elected officials, crowded into the community center of the Manhattanville public houses to express their support of the plan...One by one, 50 people took the microphone and expressed distrust of and disdain for Columbia's expansion plan..."
Importantly, the 197-a plan, as it is called, would insure that the area be used for the creation of affordable housing-something that is totally absent in the Columbia proposal. As the Spectator reports elsewhere, the Columbia DEIS indicates pretty clearly that their expansion will cause considerable primary as well as secondary displacement.
In addition, the "bedrock" of the community plan, in the words of one local resident, is the prohibition against the use of eminent domain. Of all of the area's elected officials, however, only State Senator Bill Perkins came down to personally support the community alternative-raising questions among those present about where their electeds were standing on all of this.
Still, the community turn out was impressive, and it will be interesting to see how this all plays out as it becomes clearer and clearer that the Columbia expansion-much like the mayor's congestion pricing scheme-has elite support but not any grass roots love.
Importantly, the 197-a plan, as it is called, would insure that the area be used for the creation of affordable housing-something that is totally absent in the Columbia proposal. As the Spectator reports elsewhere, the Columbia DEIS indicates pretty clearly that their expansion will cause considerable primary as well as secondary displacement.
In addition, the "bedrock" of the community plan, in the words of one local resident, is the prohibition against the use of eminent domain. Of all of the area's elected officials, however, only State Senator Bill Perkins came down to personally support the community alternative-raising questions among those present about where their electeds were standing on all of this.
Still, the community turn out was impressive, and it will be interesting to see how this all plays out as it becomes clearer and clearer that the Columbia expansion-much like the mayor's congestion pricing scheme-has elite support but not any grass roots love.
Congestion Tax Poll-axed
As the NY Post is reporting this morning, the just released Marist/WNBC poll on congestion pricing finds that-well, just what all the other polls found, with the exception of the Schoen push poll-most New Yorkers think the idea is a dumb one. So what we have here is the elite-both business and environmental-lined up against average city residents, as well as the expected opposition from commuters outside the city.
Even in Manhattan we find that the supporters of the mayor's tax can't get enough support to break 50%, and interestingly enough, the Bronx opposition to the plan is the highest in the city, with a 68% disapproval rating (we guess that the asthma hysteria is falling on deaf ears here, and the elitist nature of the proposal is getting the deserved Bronx cheer). Today's NY Post letters section gives a very clear glimpse into the sentiment of the majority of rank-and-file New Yorkers ("Indigestion pricing" is the heading).
All of this comes at a time when it appears really unlikely that the mayor's plan will be entertained in a timely fashion up in Albany next week. As the NY Times is reporting today, "unlikely" is the adjective that is most descriptive of the plan's prospects. There is, however, some talk of setting up a commission to devise a proposal that would be more politically viable. As Speaker Silver told the paper; he had "a hundred questions" from law makers about the workability of the mayor's plan.
The NY Sun reports on the efforts to set up a commission and tells its readers that it is probably the only way to keep the mayor's proposal alive since, "Assembly Democrats said they were doubtful that lawmakers would pass any version of congestion pricing." Clearly, as the Sun points out, any program that would be approved, "would give lawmakers broad latitude to change fundamental components of the plan, such as shrinking the zone boundaries, reducing the daily fee rates, and adding more exemptions to the road tax."
What the Assembly folks are doing, and kudos to Silver, Brodsky and Lancman here, is legislating-something that should have been done before the mayor tried to bogart everyone with his tax blitz. There has always been scores of discrepancies between the mayor's description of his plan and the language of the bill that was submitted-and confusion, sometimes intentionally sowed, about the details of the proposal even among the plan's supporters.
Which is why our friend Matt Schuerman shouldn't have looked to poke fun at Latino Restaurant head Louis Nunez at our press conference (see Hoy's Spanish language coverage) yesterday because of Nunez's less than perfect understanding of the mayor's scheme. What Schuerman did get right was that, "...if the mayor's congestion pricing proposal does go down, it will be partly thanks to many details that are easy to misunderstand-and misrepresent."
And who's fault is that? What's clear, as entrepreneur Ruben Levine pointed out yesterday-and more and more reporters are doing so as well-is that the truck portion of the plan is nothing more or less than a business tax that will have a zero impact on congestion-but it is still being used by supporters as if it did (misrepresentation Matt?).
It is time for this plan to get a careful and comprehensive airing so that all of the details can be understood-and altered so that fairness and equity can be assured. The entire scheme needs to be put through as city wide ULURP, just as was the mega store proposal in the mid-nineties. Everyone in the city will be affected, and all of us need to be part of a proper review process.
Even in Manhattan we find that the supporters of the mayor's tax can't get enough support to break 50%, and interestingly enough, the Bronx opposition to the plan is the highest in the city, with a 68% disapproval rating (we guess that the asthma hysteria is falling on deaf ears here, and the elitist nature of the proposal is getting the deserved Bronx cheer). Today's NY Post letters section gives a very clear glimpse into the sentiment of the majority of rank-and-file New Yorkers ("Indigestion pricing" is the heading).
All of this comes at a time when it appears really unlikely that the mayor's plan will be entertained in a timely fashion up in Albany next week. As the NY Times is reporting today, "unlikely" is the adjective that is most descriptive of the plan's prospects. There is, however, some talk of setting up a commission to devise a proposal that would be more politically viable. As Speaker Silver told the paper; he had "a hundred questions" from law makers about the workability of the mayor's plan.
The NY Sun reports on the efforts to set up a commission and tells its readers that it is probably the only way to keep the mayor's proposal alive since, "Assembly Democrats said they were doubtful that lawmakers would pass any version of congestion pricing." Clearly, as the Sun points out, any program that would be approved, "would give lawmakers broad latitude to change fundamental components of the plan, such as shrinking the zone boundaries, reducing the daily fee rates, and adding more exemptions to the road tax."
What the Assembly folks are doing, and kudos to Silver, Brodsky and Lancman here, is legislating-something that should have been done before the mayor tried to bogart everyone with his tax blitz. There has always been scores of discrepancies between the mayor's description of his plan and the language of the bill that was submitted-and confusion, sometimes intentionally sowed, about the details of the proposal even among the plan's supporters.
Which is why our friend Matt Schuerman shouldn't have looked to poke fun at Latino Restaurant head Louis Nunez at our press conference (see Hoy's Spanish language coverage) yesterday because of Nunez's less than perfect understanding of the mayor's scheme. What Schuerman did get right was that, "...if the mayor's congestion pricing proposal does go down, it will be partly thanks to many details that are easy to misunderstand-and misrepresent."
And who's fault is that? What's clear, as entrepreneur Ruben Levine pointed out yesterday-and more and more reporters are doing so as well-is that the truck portion of the plan is nothing more or less than a business tax that will have a zero impact on congestion-but it is still being used by supporters as if it did (misrepresentation Matt?).
It is time for this plan to get a careful and comprehensive airing so that all of the details can be understood-and altered so that fairness and equity can be assured. The entire scheme needs to be put through as city wide ULURP, just as was the mega store proposal in the mid-nineties. Everyone in the city will be affected, and all of us need to be part of a proper review process.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Silver Holds the Line-
As the NY Times City Room blog is reporting, it doesn't appear as if Shelly Silver is motivated to return to Albany on Monday to do the mayor's bidding on the congestion tax. What puzzles us is something that our coalition's Walter McCaffrey pointed out at today's press conference by small business opponents of the mayor's plan.
As Walter said, there are something like eight other bids in for the federal money that the mayor says can't be obtained unless New York adopts his congestion traffic tax. Yet no other city has adopted a congestion tax plan. It appears to us that the mayor has painted himself into a corner here. If the city fails to get the federal dollars, it seems to us that this would be a classic example of a self-inflicted wound. The mayor has drawn an unnecessary line in the sand, and he has only himself to blame if failure follows.
As Walter said, there are something like eight other bids in for the federal money that the mayor says can't be obtained unless New York adopts his congestion traffic tax. Yet no other city has adopted a congestion tax plan. It appears to us that the mayor has painted himself into a corner here. If the city fails to get the federal dollars, it seems to us that this would be a classic example of a self-inflicted wound. The mayor has drawn an unnecessary line in the sand, and he has only himself to blame if failure follows.
Small Business Rallies Against New Traffic Tax
Today, in front of Guantanamera Restaurant at Noon on 56th Street and 8th Avenue, various representatives of small business organizations will hold a press conference to continue to voice their opposition to the mayor's congestion tax. The NYSRA and the Latino Restaurant Association, will be joined by the Small Business Congress and the Independent Beer Wholesalers of New York to underscore just how the mayor's proposed tax will hurt small wholesalers, retailers and independent contractors.
The event takes place while the self-imposed deadline for federal funds approaches, and there are still signs that the mayor's plan may not be dead yet-compromise is still a possibility. The press conference is being held to show continued support for Speaker Silver and Assemblymen Brodsky and Lancman who, along with Senator Kruger and Councilman Weprin have shown the most strength in waging the fight against the mayor and his money.
In addition, the Alliance will be there to expose the hypocrisy of environmental groups such as the Environmental Defense Fund who have used the clean air issue to make their case, while remaining silent for the last five years while Bloomberg has waged war against neighborhood businesses in the mall-driven building frenzy that has been the hallmark of his administration-at least until he had his remarkable environmental epiphany.
The event takes place while the self-imposed deadline for federal funds approaches, and there are still signs that the mayor's plan may not be dead yet-compromise is still a possibility. The press conference is being held to show continued support for Speaker Silver and Assemblymen Brodsky and Lancman who, along with Senator Kruger and Councilman Weprin have shown the most strength in waging the fight against the mayor and his money.
In addition, the Alliance will be there to expose the hypocrisy of environmental groups such as the Environmental Defense Fund who have used the clean air issue to make their case, while remaining silent for the last five years while Bloomberg has waged war against neighborhood businesses in the mall-driven building frenzy that has been the hallmark of his administration-at least until he had his remarkable environmental epiphany.
Low Lifes, Low Blows
In what has to be described as the ultimate in chutzpah, some group called Transportation Alternatives has taken it upon themselves to attack Richard Brodsky personally for his opposition to the mayor's congestion tax. As the NY Times' City Room blog reported yesterday, someone named Paul Steely White tried to correlate Brodsky's opposition to the traffic plan with contributions he received from the "parking garage industry."
Now we've known Brodsky for over twenty years, and we first got acquainted with his fighting spirit when he personally took on King Budweiser in the late eighties. Since then we've seen him take on any number of powerful figures; and he is the last guy in Albany you want to label a to label as a tool for any special interest.
So who is the putz at TA who wants to do this? Frankly, we have no idea, but the chutzpah in all of this is the fact that the special interests ($4-$5 million and counting) are lined up with Bloomberg on this new tax-with folks like TA acting as the useful idiots in the front row of a mayoral charade on behalf of the environment.
And while we're at it Mr. White, where has your group been when the mayor was adding tens of thousands of tons of new carbon dioxide emissions with his malling of the Bronx and Brooklyn? When Wal-Mart wanted to add thousands of cars to the choked S.I. roadways in and around Tottenvile was the Bloomberg/TA/EDF/NRDC alliance leading the charge of outrage? Where was the concern about asthma for black and Latino children when the Bronx Terminal Market was destroyed to bring 125,000 cars and trucks a week to the new Gateway Mall?- right on asthma alley.
So please, just stop with the aspersions against someone who has championed progressive causes for the better part of three decades in Albany. If you want to see special interests in action, all you need to do is to go down to city hall and watch the new Sotheby's in action-as the mayors minions sell everything but the Brooklyn Bridge to garner support for his new tax.
And don't think that the mayor's money isn't playing a central role with many of these barking seals. After all, the NYC Partnership's two leading lights-the comedy duo of Ross and Roth-are making hundreds of millions through their close friendship with Deputy Dan. Anyone who doesn't think that some of these enviros, habitually short of funds, aren't angling for a future piece of the Bloomberg pie isn't really paying attention (with the exception of our friends at DMI who we believe are genuinely committed to the taxing policy of the mayor).
So as we go into the home stretch, let's hope that Shelly hold firm on the need to subject this entire grandiose plan to a real independent review; one that ignores the slavish hectoring of the Daily News editorial board, and examines whether the Bloomberg scheme will be able to deliver on all of the promises that the mayor has been making. All of the "there" isn't "there" in this scheme.
Now we've known Brodsky for over twenty years, and we first got acquainted with his fighting spirit when he personally took on King Budweiser in the late eighties. Since then we've seen him take on any number of powerful figures; and he is the last guy in Albany you want to label a to label as a tool for any special interest.
So who is the putz at TA who wants to do this? Frankly, we have no idea, but the chutzpah in all of this is the fact that the special interests ($4-$5 million and counting) are lined up with Bloomberg on this new tax-with folks like TA acting as the useful idiots in the front row of a mayoral charade on behalf of the environment.
And while we're at it Mr. White, where has your group been when the mayor was adding tens of thousands of tons of new carbon dioxide emissions with his malling of the Bronx and Brooklyn? When Wal-Mart wanted to add thousands of cars to the choked S.I. roadways in and around Tottenvile was the Bloomberg/TA/EDF/NRDC alliance leading the charge of outrage? Where was the concern about asthma for black and Latino children when the Bronx Terminal Market was destroyed to bring 125,000 cars and trucks a week to the new Gateway Mall?- right on asthma alley.
So please, just stop with the aspersions against someone who has championed progressive causes for the better part of three decades in Albany. If you want to see special interests in action, all you need to do is to go down to city hall and watch the new Sotheby's in action-as the mayors minions sell everything but the Brooklyn Bridge to garner support for his new tax.
And don't think that the mayor's money isn't playing a central role with many of these barking seals. After all, the NYC Partnership's two leading lights-the comedy duo of Ross and Roth-are making hundreds of millions through their close friendship with Deputy Dan. Anyone who doesn't think that some of these enviros, habitually short of funds, aren't angling for a future piece of the Bloomberg pie isn't really paying attention (with the exception of our friends at DMI who we believe are genuinely committed to the taxing policy of the mayor).
So as we go into the home stretch, let's hope that Shelly hold firm on the need to subject this entire grandiose plan to a real independent review; one that ignores the slavish hectoring of the Daily News editorial board, and examines whether the Bloomberg scheme will be able to deliver on all of the promises that the mayor has been making. All of the "there" isn't "there" in this scheme.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Columbering Along
With its consultants under fire, and the local community up in arms, Columbia University is proceeding with its expansion plans as if it has no care in the world. It apparently believes the old maxim: "In politics, clubs are trump."
As the NY Sun reported yesterday, the university played to a sympathetic audience over at the City Planning Commission at Reade Street. The CPC has never had any real interest in actually evaluating land use applications, preferring to rubber stamp whatever the mayor decides he wants. In fact, in over thirty years of watching these appointed folks we've never seen them take any independent stand on anything.
There certainly not going to begin with Columbia; and with the current Chair, the commission's only input on anything is with the aesthetics of a plan. A proposal could be wiping out an entire neighborhood, but if there is enough greenery in the community's demise, than you can count on our city's Burden to wax euphoric.
What makes the current battle interesting is the fact that there are actually two competing plans before the community board. The so-called 197-A plan-a plan backed by CB #9- would delimit what the university could do in the 18 acre site, in particular in regards to the taking of private property: "Central to the 197-a plan is the attempt to block the taking of private land by eminent domain, the potential use of which in West Harlem has riled critics of the project and has been steadfastly and unanimously opposed by Community Board Nine."
Yet Columbia, as the NY Times' City Room blog points out, is still as of yesterday insisting that its expansion is community-friendly. As President Bollinger told the CPC; "Everything we've done has been with the spirit of integrating a campus into a community..." Everything but actually negotiating face-to-face with community residents and property owners.
Clearly, the university's notion of integration differs from that of the community itself: somewhat along the lines of-"We integrated the community in order to save it." This entire matter is headed for a major confrontation and Columbia is whistling past the graveyard..
As the NY Sun reported yesterday, the university played to a sympathetic audience over at the City Planning Commission at Reade Street. The CPC has never had any real interest in actually evaluating land use applications, preferring to rubber stamp whatever the mayor decides he wants. In fact, in over thirty years of watching these appointed folks we've never seen them take any independent stand on anything.
There certainly not going to begin with Columbia; and with the current Chair, the commission's only input on anything is with the aesthetics of a plan. A proposal could be wiping out an entire neighborhood, but if there is enough greenery in the community's demise, than you can count on our city's Burden to wax euphoric.
What makes the current battle interesting is the fact that there are actually two competing plans before the community board. The so-called 197-A plan-a plan backed by CB #9- would delimit what the university could do in the 18 acre site, in particular in regards to the taking of private property: "Central to the 197-a plan is the attempt to block the taking of private land by eminent domain, the potential use of which in West Harlem has riled critics of the project and has been steadfastly and unanimously opposed by Community Board Nine."
Yet Columbia, as the NY Times' City Room blog points out, is still as of yesterday insisting that its expansion is community-friendly. As President Bollinger told the CPC; "Everything we've done has been with the spirit of integrating a campus into a community..." Everything but actually negotiating face-to-face with community residents and property owners.
Clearly, the university's notion of integration differs from that of the community itself: somewhat along the lines of-"We integrated the community in order to save it." This entire matter is headed for a major confrontation and Columbia is whistling past the graveyard..
Bloomberg' Congestion Advantage: Paper Thin
The NY Times this morning is describing as "unlikely" the chances that the mayor's congestion tax will garner Albany approval-at least in time to meet the self-imposed "deadline' for the flow of Federal transportation money into the city. Instead another congestion-tackling proposal, sponsored by Assemblyman Lancman, is ready to be introduced in the assembly; a bill that doesn't include the $8 car tax and the $21 truck tax that the mayor sought to levy.
The current turn of events follows on the heels of a scathing assembly report from Richard Brodsky that exposed the regressive nature of the congestion tax, while at the same time underscoring the extent to which the plan failed to deliver on its core objective: any significant reduction in the level of congestion in the central business district.
Typically our tax-and-spend friends were driven into a frenzy of fury by Brodsky's report. Over at the DMI, a place that we have already scrutinized for its love affair with taxing New Yorkers, the assembly report was greeted with scorn by DMI spokesman Chad Marlow, who released the institute's own memo: "Mr. Marlow said the the Drum Major report should 'carry more weight than one written by a politician who had already announced his opposition to congestion pricing before he started writing his report.'"
Is this the same place that recently honored the mayor and, like all of these congestion tax supporters, are eagerly anticipating the future largess of our Johnny-come-lately billionaire environmentalist? Meanwhile, others even less tactful than DMI, have resorted to accusing Brodsky-of all people-of being a tool for the parking garage industry. This raise chutzpah to a new level.
While others, like the Plague of Conservation Vultures, chide Brodsky's report for its failure to "evaluate the cost to our environment" if the mayor's scheme is not enacted. It's lucky that Brodsky stopped where he did and didn't treat all of the environmental assumptions with the same critical eye that he gave to the economic impacts of congestion taxing (although he did point out that the congestion relief in the proposal was minimal). If he did it would have been revealed that some people, including the mayor,were using that little girl's asthma inhaler for something more that pure air.
The mayor's money, and his willingness to spend it freely, is the elephant in the room here-and we're not including his "city for sale" performance in enticing electeds to support his plan. Every single good government group is angling for a piece of the pie, something that greatly stimulates what may have been an inclination to support the mayor in the first place.
And what are we to make of the Sierra Club which is trying to make congestion taxing a question of-national security? Just what we need, people who probably opposed all of our real national security efforts-both military as well as espionage-now raising the specter of security to support their natural tendency to expand the "good" role of government at the expense of the tax payers.
Which leaves us with the mayor. He continues to arrogantly act as if he can dictate to the other elected leaders of the city and state. And why shouldn't he feel this way when the city council has totally abdicated its role as a check on mayoral power? Not having been disabused, he drives forward in the belief that he can bogart everyone. As the Times reports: "At a news conference yesterday, Mr. Bloomberg declined to address the congestion pricing issue, but did refer briefly to the Assembly report, saying, 'That's just a piece of paper.'"
And so is toilet tissue, but we know how important that is. In the end, the office cartoon about no job being complete without the paper work (with a picture of the child wiping his behind), may justifiably come to symbolize the importance of the Brodsky report in the final demise of the mayor's plan.
The current turn of events follows on the heels of a scathing assembly report from Richard Brodsky that exposed the regressive nature of the congestion tax, while at the same time underscoring the extent to which the plan failed to deliver on its core objective: any significant reduction in the level of congestion in the central business district.
Typically our tax-and-spend friends were driven into a frenzy of fury by Brodsky's report. Over at the DMI, a place that we have already scrutinized for its love affair with taxing New Yorkers, the assembly report was greeted with scorn by DMI spokesman Chad Marlow, who released the institute's own memo: "Mr. Marlow said the the Drum Major report should 'carry more weight than one written by a politician who had already announced his opposition to congestion pricing before he started writing his report.'"
Is this the same place that recently honored the mayor and, like all of these congestion tax supporters, are eagerly anticipating the future largess of our Johnny-come-lately billionaire environmentalist? Meanwhile, others even less tactful than DMI, have resorted to accusing Brodsky-of all people-of being a tool for the parking garage industry. This raise chutzpah to a new level.
While others, like the Plague of Conservation Vultures, chide Brodsky's report for its failure to "evaluate the cost to our environment" if the mayor's scheme is not enacted. It's lucky that Brodsky stopped where he did and didn't treat all of the environmental assumptions with the same critical eye that he gave to the economic impacts of congestion taxing (although he did point out that the congestion relief in the proposal was minimal). If he did it would have been revealed that some people, including the mayor,were using that little girl's asthma inhaler for something more that pure air.
The mayor's money, and his willingness to spend it freely, is the elephant in the room here-and we're not including his "city for sale" performance in enticing electeds to support his plan. Every single good government group is angling for a piece of the pie, something that greatly stimulates what may have been an inclination to support the mayor in the first place.
And what are we to make of the Sierra Club which is trying to make congestion taxing a question of-national security? Just what we need, people who probably opposed all of our real national security efforts-both military as well as espionage-now raising the specter of security to support their natural tendency to expand the "good" role of government at the expense of the tax payers.
Which leaves us with the mayor. He continues to arrogantly act as if he can dictate to the other elected leaders of the city and state. And why shouldn't he feel this way when the city council has totally abdicated its role as a check on mayoral power? Not having been disabused, he drives forward in the belief that he can bogart everyone. As the Times reports: "At a news conference yesterday, Mr. Bloomberg declined to address the congestion pricing issue, but did refer briefly to the Assembly report, saying, 'That's just a piece of paper.'"
And so is toilet tissue, but we know how important that is. In the end, the office cartoon about no job being complete without the paper work (with a picture of the child wiping his behind), may justifiably come to symbolize the importance of the Brodsky report in the final demise of the mayor's plan.
Monday, July 09, 2007
Traffic Congestion Tax Jammed
"It ain't easy being green," that old lament from our Sesame Street favorite Kermit the Frog, must be resonating in Mike Bloomberg's ear just about now. With just one week left in the mayor's self-imposed deadline for action, (as the Albany Times Union reports) it is appearing less and less likely that the legislature is going to genuflect to Mike Bloomberg's national extreme makeover as an environmentalist.
The reason for the skepticism-a new report just issued by Assemblyman Richard Brodsky that raises some very serious reservations about the disparate impact of the congestion tax. As the NY Times reports this morning, the Brodsky evaluation of the mayor's plan highlights the extent to which the proposed "fee" would hit middle income city residents the hardest; "The new report characterizes the plan as a regressive tax that puts most of the burden on poor and middle-income drivers, and cautions that the charges would need to be raised substantially to have the desired effect of easing congestion."
Just so! And in issuing the report Brodsky took umbrage at the charge levelled by the mayor that those opposed to the plan were not concerned with the public interest: "'We're interested only in the public interest, and the first thing that the public requires is someone to actually look at the mayor's plan, fairly and thoroughly."
And look Brodsky did. As the NY Sun reports, Brodsky found that the actual bill that was submitted to the legislature differs substantially from the rhetoric that Bloomberg has used to sell the idea. For instance, there is no provision in the legislation that would guarantee that the money generated from the tax would go to mass transit; or that drivers simply moving their cars in the zone to comply with alternate side parking regulations would not be charged the tax.
In the case of congestion taxing, the devil is really in the details-and when the details haven't been thoroughly examined it usually means that there is a great deal that isn't going to be pleasant for NYC tax payers. As the NY Daily News tells us, the Brodsky report underscores that, "Brooklyn, Queens and Bronx drivers make about 24% of the trips into the congestion area, but would pay 47% of the fees." These New York City residents have an annual salary of $46,ooo, while Manhattan commuters (earning roughly $74,000 a year) who make 72% of the trips, would pay only 42% of the fees.
All of which means that the mayor needs to take a deep breathe and put this plan into a proper review process; and not one done by one of the usual consulting suspects. While he's at it, he can cease and desist in his asthma huckstering, something he continues today in the NY Post with a tendentious Op-ed piece.
NYC does need a rational traffic congestion plan. The mayor's proposal, however, is not-and should not- be the final word. It might also be a good idea if the crafting of the plan is done in consultation with the legislators that will be called on to approve it; and not in the current "make way for the lord" fashion.
The reason for the skepticism-a new report just issued by Assemblyman Richard Brodsky that raises some very serious reservations about the disparate impact of the congestion tax. As the NY Times reports this morning, the Brodsky evaluation of the mayor's plan highlights the extent to which the proposed "fee" would hit middle income city residents the hardest; "The new report characterizes the plan as a regressive tax that puts most of the burden on poor and middle-income drivers, and cautions that the charges would need to be raised substantially to have the desired effect of easing congestion."
Just so! And in issuing the report Brodsky took umbrage at the charge levelled by the mayor that those opposed to the plan were not concerned with the public interest: "'We're interested only in the public interest, and the first thing that the public requires is someone to actually look at the mayor's plan, fairly and thoroughly."
And look Brodsky did. As the NY Sun reports, Brodsky found that the actual bill that was submitted to the legislature differs substantially from the rhetoric that Bloomberg has used to sell the idea. For instance, there is no provision in the legislation that would guarantee that the money generated from the tax would go to mass transit; or that drivers simply moving their cars in the zone to comply with alternate side parking regulations would not be charged the tax.
In the case of congestion taxing, the devil is really in the details-and when the details haven't been thoroughly examined it usually means that there is a great deal that isn't going to be pleasant for NYC tax payers. As the NY Daily News tells us, the Brodsky report underscores that, "Brooklyn, Queens and Bronx drivers make about 24% of the trips into the congestion area, but would pay 47% of the fees." These New York City residents have an annual salary of $46,ooo, while Manhattan commuters (earning roughly $74,000 a year) who make 72% of the trips, would pay only 42% of the fees.
All of which means that the mayor needs to take a deep breathe and put this plan into a proper review process; and not one done by one of the usual consulting suspects. While he's at it, he can cease and desist in his asthma huckstering, something he continues today in the NY Post with a tendentious Op-ed piece.
NYC does need a rational traffic congestion plan. The mayor's proposal, however, is not-and should not- be the final word. It might also be a good idea if the crafting of the plan is done in consultation with the legislators that will be called on to approve it; and not in the current "make way for the lord" fashion.
Sunday, July 08, 2007
DOH Being Butt Ugly
In today's NY Daily News the paper reports on the proliferation of illegal cigarette sales in many of the city's poorest neighborhoods. The story's focus is on the fact that buttlegging is a threat to the health of the folks in these areas because it prevents the deterrent effect of the cigarette tax from operating effectively. As the paper's headline points out, "Illegal Market Blackens Lungs."
AS the News points out, the steep tax increase on tobacco products, an 1800% record hike for this city, was "aimed at convincing New Yorkers that tobacco is bad form their health." Yet the fact that a pack of black market smokes on the street can cost one or two dollars less than in a store makes it easier to purchase and avoid the health/cost dilemma.
How much do these street sales impact the cigarette market? It is, of course hard to say exactly since the sales are, well, illegal. The News, however, goes on to say that, "After the city hiked its cigarette tax from 8 cents to $1.50 per pack in 2002, the number of New Yorkers getting their street fix through street hawkers rose from 6% to 9%, city health officials said."
Really? How does any "city health official" know anything about the black market in cigarettes? What we do know is that the city's 2202 hike is taking $250 million a year from the bodegas, newsstands, green grocers and delis of NYC. That's over 50% of the legitimate sales. So who exactly is the moron who came up with the 6-9% estimate?
Well maybe it was the commissioner, who commented to the News that, "'Taxing cigarettes is the single most effective way to reduce tobacco use...Small and even modest amounts of evasion don't change that one bit.'" We're not quite sure what the distinction is between "small" and "modest," but we do know that a greater than 50% reduction in legal sales every year is not a small thing to the store owners who are suffering the loss of business.
Which is not really surprising since, when the mayor was asked about the severe loss off business from the cigarette tax, he characterized it as "a minor economic issue." What is comforting is the fact that city officials "have doubled their retail inspections to 60 a month..." Just what we have come to expect: when legitimate store owners are being victimized by illegal street sales, the city comes to their aid by-ratcheting up inspections on these very same retail businesses. Way to go Mayor Mike!
AS the News points out, the steep tax increase on tobacco products, an 1800% record hike for this city, was "aimed at convincing New Yorkers that tobacco is bad form their health." Yet the fact that a pack of black market smokes on the street can cost one or two dollars less than in a store makes it easier to purchase and avoid the health/cost dilemma.
How much do these street sales impact the cigarette market? It is, of course hard to say exactly since the sales are, well, illegal. The News, however, goes on to say that, "After the city hiked its cigarette tax from 8 cents to $1.50 per pack in 2002, the number of New Yorkers getting their street fix through street hawkers rose from 6% to 9%, city health officials said."
Really? How does any "city health official" know anything about the black market in cigarettes? What we do know is that the city's 2202 hike is taking $250 million a year from the bodegas, newsstands, green grocers and delis of NYC. That's over 50% of the legitimate sales. So who exactly is the moron who came up with the 6-9% estimate?
Well maybe it was the commissioner, who commented to the News that, "'Taxing cigarettes is the single most effective way to reduce tobacco use...Small and even modest amounts of evasion don't change that one bit.'" We're not quite sure what the distinction is between "small" and "modest," but we do know that a greater than 50% reduction in legal sales every year is not a small thing to the store owners who are suffering the loss of business.
Which is not really surprising since, when the mayor was asked about the severe loss off business from the cigarette tax, he characterized it as "a minor economic issue." What is comforting is the fact that city officials "have doubled their retail inspections to 60 a month..." Just what we have come to expect: when legitimate store owners are being victimized by illegal street sales, the city comes to their aid by-ratcheting up inspections on these very same retail businesses. Way to go Mayor Mike!
Saturday, July 07, 2007
Congestion Fear and Loathing
We continue to find good reasons why the mayor's congestion tax scheme is desperately in need of some sunlight. As more and more reasons are put forward in support of the plan-rationales that all come with hefty price tags-we can't help but wonder who are the folks that are doing all of the accounting. You see, there's no possible way that the congestion tax can fund massive mass transit building, while at the same time, generate enough money for the MTA to hold the line on the $2 fare.
Now we find that the League of Conservation Voters is about to launch a mailing campaign-on top of the phony asthma-prevention one sponsored by the NYC Partnership-calling on voters to support the mayor's plan in order to keep the fare at its current level. As the NY Daily News reports this morning, "The New York League of Conservation Voters is mailing flyers to 350,000 voters calling on them to tell their legislators to support the plan."
What are these one-issue advocates doing here? First the business moguls lecture us on the environment, than the environmentalists hector us about subway and bus fares. All of the confusion can be explained by the fact that the mayor's pollster has to be orchestrating the whole phony coalition campaign. Next we'll see REBNY calling on New Yorkers to recycle more and turn off their excess electricity so that we can all help the mayor to save the planet.
And the phoniest thing of all in this political theater of the absurd is the leader of this crusade. There is nothing more disconcerting, or dishonest, than seeing a jet taking, helicopter-riding, luxury boat-owning, billionaire leading some kind of crusade against global warming.
What's even more hilarious-and we got to give Bloomberg credit for creativity here-is watching the environmental justice street activists and the trust fund environmentalists march arm in arm with some of this city's most ruthless business tycoons. Tom Wolfe couldn't have concocted this whole thing any better than the mayor's national advance team has. Add to this farrago the editorial muñecos, and you have fantastic high comedy.
What you don't have is good public policy. The mayor has done a great job at manufacturing all of these political illusions but, fortunately, it doesn't appear that he has convinced a good many state legislators-and Speaker Silver in particular, that his plan makes sense. Add to this, the over-the-top feud between the governor and the majority leader, and it begins to look like-just as with the auto-dependent West Side stadium-that the mayor's going to need to come up with Plan B. We can't wait. But a number of outer borough electeds who sold their support to the mayor are going to have some explaining to do.
Now we find that the League of Conservation Voters is about to launch a mailing campaign-on top of the phony asthma-prevention one sponsored by the NYC Partnership-calling on voters to support the mayor's plan in order to keep the fare at its current level. As the NY Daily News reports this morning, "The New York League of Conservation Voters is mailing flyers to 350,000 voters calling on them to tell their legislators to support the plan."
What are these one-issue advocates doing here? First the business moguls lecture us on the environment, than the environmentalists hector us about subway and bus fares. All of the confusion can be explained by the fact that the mayor's pollster has to be orchestrating the whole phony coalition campaign. Next we'll see REBNY calling on New Yorkers to recycle more and turn off their excess electricity so that we can all help the mayor to save the planet.
And the phoniest thing of all in this political theater of the absurd is the leader of this crusade. There is nothing more disconcerting, or dishonest, than seeing a jet taking, helicopter-riding, luxury boat-owning, billionaire leading some kind of crusade against global warming.
What's even more hilarious-and we got to give Bloomberg credit for creativity here-is watching the environmental justice street activists and the trust fund environmentalists march arm in arm with some of this city's most ruthless business tycoons. Tom Wolfe couldn't have concocted this whole thing any better than the mayor's national advance team has. Add to this farrago the editorial muñecos, and you have fantastic high comedy.
What you don't have is good public policy. The mayor has done a great job at manufacturing all of these political illusions but, fortunately, it doesn't appear that he has convinced a good many state legislators-and Speaker Silver in particular, that his plan makes sense. Add to this, the over-the-top feud between the governor and the majority leader, and it begins to look like-just as with the auto-dependent West Side stadium-that the mayor's going to need to come up with Plan B. We can't wait. But a number of outer borough electeds who sold their support to the mayor are going to have some explaining to do.
Friday, July 06, 2007
Funny Money
We have already commented about the lame rally that the mayor held yesterday in support of his congestion tax. In fact, we were too kind-it was actually much lamer than we had originally thought. With over $3.5 million in the pro congestion tax budget, you would have thought that the mayor could have been able to generate more than around 100 rallyers.
Now, as Metro's Patrick Arden points out in this morning's paper, it appears that even this meager showing was the result of-paying the kids in the green shirts to show up; "The troops wore bright green shirts and held up signs. Two teenage cousins from Soundview...wore their shirts but didn't know much about congestion pricing. They showed up because one of the groups was paying $10 an hour."
Now it certainly doesn't get any lamer than that. With congestion taxing it appears that even money is not enough to generate any real enthusiasm for the scheme.
Now, as Metro's Patrick Arden points out in this morning's paper, it appears that even this meager showing was the result of-paying the kids in the green shirts to show up; "The troops wore bright green shirts and held up signs. Two teenage cousins from Soundview...wore their shirts but didn't know much about congestion pricing. They showed up because one of the groups was paying $10 an hour."
Now it certainly doesn't get any lamer than that. With congestion taxing it appears that even money is not enough to generate any real enthusiasm for the scheme.
Decongesting Bloomberg
In one of the best examples of a manufactured grass roots effort-and a not very good one at that-the mayor led a rally yesterday in Times Square in favor of his plan to raise taxes on commuters driving into the city. As the NY Sun reports, "Over a hundred people gathered for the rally..." What's a matter Mike? Didn't you guys have more than 100 green tee shirts to give away? (Actually, the NY Post called it, "dozens of supporters").
The entire mayoral campaign is beginning to take on a "theater of the absurd" quality, as environmental zealots consort with real estate moguls in some kind of grotesque parody of political activism. Has anyone in the press bothered to investigate why so many rich folks have invested in this effort? Doesn't take any genius to figure out that the quid pro quo here for the likes of Steve Ross is not cleaner city air.
Speaker Silver continues to be the voice of reason in all of this, telling the Post that he believes that a study is justifiable in order to better determine the plan's "overall downstate impact." Bloomberg, however, dismissed the need for a study, saying that the "time is now," alluding to the federal money that he believes will be made available should the state sign on to his experiment.
But Blomberg wasn't content with simply saying that. He just had to blow smoke about global warming and, of course, asthma; "'We also have to do something right now for those kids suffering from asthma aggravated by car pollution,' he said." The Post goes on to point out that
Lancet, the British medical journal, has published studies that show correlations between auto emissions and respiratory ailments.
Well well- put a stop work order on the Gateway Mall right now! Cease and desist on the expansion of the Gateway Estates Mall as well; both malls are in high asthma zones and will attract tens of thousands of additional cars and trucks every week into those neighborhoods.
And while we're at it, let's close up the building of Vronado's Rego Park Mall and shut down discussions for the redevelopment of Willets Point-both projects will generate considerable car emissions and threaten the health of the little girl with the inhaler in the ad sponsored by these very same hypocritical developers.But let's not stop there. What about the Vronado/Related redevelopment of Penn Station? This is going to tie up mid-town traffic for years in ways that are far worse than the current commuter traffic.
Oh, you say we can't do all of this? Why not? Well, because the profits of the developers are sacrosanct in New York, while the income of middle class New Yorkers is continually up for grabs by tax happy politicians, As the Post highlights this morning, even when we get a tax reduction in this town it turns into a MIRAGE. This is precisely why we told the News that the Partnership ad campaign was, "as dishonest a piece of political communication as this city has ever seen."
And speaking of mirages, we find out in the NY Daily News this morning that, given the cost of a commuter bus ride, it may actually be cheaper for folks to get into their cars rather than get jammed into over-priced buses. We continue to find out more inconvenient truths about a mayoral plan that our beloved chief executive desperately wants to avoid having any in-depth scrutiny. We're beginning to understand more and more why he is resisting independent review.
The entire mayoral campaign is beginning to take on a "theater of the absurd" quality, as environmental zealots consort with real estate moguls in some kind of grotesque parody of political activism. Has anyone in the press bothered to investigate why so many rich folks have invested in this effort? Doesn't take any genius to figure out that the quid pro quo here for the likes of Steve Ross is not cleaner city air.
Speaker Silver continues to be the voice of reason in all of this, telling the Post that he believes that a study is justifiable in order to better determine the plan's "overall downstate impact." Bloomberg, however, dismissed the need for a study, saying that the "time is now," alluding to the federal money that he believes will be made available should the state sign on to his experiment.
But Blomberg wasn't content with simply saying that. He just had to blow smoke about global warming and, of course, asthma; "'We also have to do something right now for those kids suffering from asthma aggravated by car pollution,' he said." The Post goes on to point out that
Lancet, the British medical journal, has published studies that show correlations between auto emissions and respiratory ailments.
Well well- put a stop work order on the Gateway Mall right now! Cease and desist on the expansion of the Gateway Estates Mall as well; both malls are in high asthma zones and will attract tens of thousands of additional cars and trucks every week into those neighborhoods.
And while we're at it, let's close up the building of Vronado's Rego Park Mall and shut down discussions for the redevelopment of Willets Point-both projects will generate considerable car emissions and threaten the health of the little girl with the inhaler in the ad sponsored by these very same hypocritical developers.But let's not stop there. What about the Vronado/Related redevelopment of Penn Station? This is going to tie up mid-town traffic for years in ways that are far worse than the current commuter traffic.
Oh, you say we can't do all of this? Why not? Well, because the profits of the developers are sacrosanct in New York, while the income of middle class New Yorkers is continually up for grabs by tax happy politicians, As the Post highlights this morning, even when we get a tax reduction in this town it turns into a MIRAGE. This is precisely why we told the News that the Partnership ad campaign was, "as dishonest a piece of political communication as this city has ever seen."
And speaking of mirages, we find out in the NY Daily News this morning that, given the cost of a commuter bus ride, it may actually be cheaper for folks to get into their cars rather than get jammed into over-priced buses. We continue to find out more inconvenient truths about a mayoral plan that our beloved chief executive desperately wants to avoid having any in-depth scrutiny. We're beginning to understand more and more why he is resisting independent review.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
