In today's NY Times the paper reports on the declining food stores at the area's food pantries. The declines mean that there will be a serious food shortage for those poor folks who often are forced to rely on the pantries to mitigate their hunger. As the Times says; "At the Campaign Against Hunger pantry in Brooklyn, which is usually a hub of activity as visitors catch up with one another on the latest gossip, fewer people are showing up since word got out that the cupboards were running bare. On one day, the middle aisle held 13 cans of corned beef, a single jar of peanut butter and a few hundred cans of spaghetti in sauce. The canned and fresh fruit were gone."
What this means is that more people, but especially kids, are likely to go hungry this winter-and it also puts the onus on the school breakfast program to fill in the breach. As we have reported, the city's school breakfast is only being accessed by around 29% of the eligible children-which puts NYC second to last among major cities.
The Health Corps has been working with the DOE in trying to establish an in-class breakfast program, the kind that has been successfully implemented elsewhere. In Newark, for instance, participation rates skyrocketed to over 90% once the eating venue was changed. The city has around 680,000 eligible children, and if the rates are raised it will mean the improvement of school functioning for kids who are often eating poorly and thus physically ill-prepared to do well in school.
The challenge ahead is to devise the kind of pilot program that both provides a nutritious first meal, and maximizes the breakfast participation rate. In our view, the experimentation here needs to involve the creative input of the private sector. The role of government is more effective steering and not rowing.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Driving Dishonesty
The debate over the issuing of drivers licenses to illegals, is just one part of a larger debate over the status of those folks who have entered the country illegally and now want to be allowed to stay-in essence, squatter's rights being elevated into a new form of civil rights. What's distressing to us, and we've done more to represent the rights of immigrant businesses than any other lobbying entity in NYC, is how proponents of the illegal cohort are so quick to label as racist any one who disagrees with their point-of-view.
A great deal of this has come out in the dispute over the actions of the Minutemen. The group, whose leader was violently bum rushed from a Columbia stage last year, advocates a citizen patrol of the US' southern border in order to stem the tide of illegals into the country. As far as we know, the group has not advocated any violence and yet they're characterized as a violent and racist vigilante organization. Which is what happens to almost anyone who disagrees with the concept of open borders.
What happens here, is that the narrative of the open borders movement features the use of the term, "anti-immigrant," in all contexts where opponents are objecting to policies involving illegal immigrants-thereby tendentiously blurring the distinction between those who struggled to come here legally, and those who purposefully skirted the country's laws. In a rhetorical nano-second, many of us who have fought for immigrants for years are turned into xenophobes and racists.
In addition, it should be pointed out that the fact that a great many people here illegally are also productive, doesn't take away from the realities of: (1) homeland security in an age of terrorism, and; (2) the large numbers of illegals engaged in criminal activity. Put simply, an open border-and those who deny they are open border advocates while opposing every proactive measure to close the border are just being dishonest-is an existential threat to the safety of all Americans.
It is also at the same time, a threat to the American national identity, since without an orderly immigration and assimilation process, our national identity will erode into meaninglessness-something that many of these open border advocates would welcome since they're not big fans of the American national identity in the first place (taking exception to the idea of what they call "American exceptionalism").
Which brings us to the Spitzer-driven drivers license issue, highlighted once again today in the NY Sun, and the NY Daily News. Underneath all of the mendacious public rhetoric lie the philosophical issues that we've outlined. We're more interested in creating a safe and orderly society, and this can't be done by the cavalier and open legitimization of those who've broken the laws to come here. The rule of law is vitiated when the state's chief executive moves, without any legislative mandate, to bestow the government's aura of legitimacy on people here illegally.
A great deal of this has come out in the dispute over the actions of the Minutemen. The group, whose leader was violently bum rushed from a Columbia stage last year, advocates a citizen patrol of the US' southern border in order to stem the tide of illegals into the country. As far as we know, the group has not advocated any violence and yet they're characterized as a violent and racist vigilante organization. Which is what happens to almost anyone who disagrees with the concept of open borders.
What happens here, is that the narrative of the open borders movement features the use of the term, "anti-immigrant," in all contexts where opponents are objecting to policies involving illegal immigrants-thereby tendentiously blurring the distinction between those who struggled to come here legally, and those who purposefully skirted the country's laws. In a rhetorical nano-second, many of us who have fought for immigrants for years are turned into xenophobes and racists.
In addition, it should be pointed out that the fact that a great many people here illegally are also productive, doesn't take away from the realities of: (1) homeland security in an age of terrorism, and; (2) the large numbers of illegals engaged in criminal activity. Put simply, an open border-and those who deny they are open border advocates while opposing every proactive measure to close the border are just being dishonest-is an existential threat to the safety of all Americans.
It is also at the same time, a threat to the American national identity, since without an orderly immigration and assimilation process, our national identity will erode into meaninglessness-something that many of these open border advocates would welcome since they're not big fans of the American national identity in the first place (taking exception to the idea of what they call "American exceptionalism").
Which brings us to the Spitzer-driven drivers license issue, highlighted once again today in the NY Sun, and the NY Daily News. Underneath all of the mendacious public rhetoric lie the philosophical issues that we've outlined. We're more interested in creating a safe and orderly society, and this can't be done by the cavalier and open legitimization of those who've broken the laws to come here. The rule of law is vitiated when the state's chief executive moves, without any legislative mandate, to bestow the government's aura of legitimacy on people here illegally.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Litterly Idiotic
We haven't commented yet on the idiocy of ticketing a six year old's hopscotch doodlings, but the editorial in today's NY Sun compels us to weigh-in as well. As we have said before, the focus on the city's poor business climate generally emphasizes the high levels of taxation. It is, however, equally important to emphasize the harsh-and so often irrational regulatory system that plagues neighborhood retailers all over the city.
It is not only the fines themselves-after all what can you say about a fruit stand owner who gets a thousand dollar ticket because his watermelons extended over the city's "five foot" demarcation line. It's also the adjudication process, whose rules must have been promulgated in collaboration with Franz Kafka.
The entire municipal code needs to be overhauled, and some real semblance of due process needs to be injected into the city's Byzantine administrative law process. Perhaps, the creation of a Debt Tribunal, separate from the agencies that issue the violations, would be a good first step.
It is not only the fines themselves-after all what can you say about a fruit stand owner who gets a thousand dollar ticket because his watermelons extended over the city's "five foot" demarcation line. It's also the adjudication process, whose rules must have been promulgated in collaboration with Franz Kafka.
The entire municipal code needs to be overhauled, and some real semblance of due process needs to be injected into the city's Byzantine administrative law process. Perhaps, the creation of a Debt Tribunal, separate from the agencies that issue the violations, would be a good first step.
Transfering Blame
Updating the transfer station blow-up that we have already commented on: there's an interesting piece on the issue in the City Room blog. What fascinates us is the way that the mayor, intent on wooing the assembly for his congestion tax plan, continues to orchestrate in ways that only embarrass Shelly-and can only be seen as counter-productive.
In fact, as Sewell's story reveals, the mayor unveiled a consultant's study that "proved" that the Gansevoort transfer station would be cheaper to build than the assembly alternative on 36th Street. Here's the money quote: "But it is unclear whether Mr. Silver will get behind the mayor’s plan or yet again throw a wrench in the administration’s works. Mr. Bloomberg said that Mr. Silver’s staff had not yet briefed the speaker on the thick report the mayor brandished in the Blue Room." (emphasis added)
Is he serious? Holding a press conference on a report that contradicts the Speaker's position before briefing him doesn't seem to be good politics, does it? And calling it a "disaster," as the NY Sun story this morning reports, if the plan doesn't pass isn't the best gauntlet to put before the assembly.
Shelly, for his part, continues to see the 36th Street site as preferable: "They seem to be ignoring the questions that they were asked, which is what does it cost to do the alternative site," Mr. Silver said in Lower Manhattan." The mayor responded by referring to the city's report, another indication that we're going to have to cease and desist from any further use of these municipal liars for hire since so many of these consultants appear willing to say anything for their employers.
Remember when the city's DOS hired consultants who found that the clustering of transfer stations in Williamsburgh didn't pose any environmental problems? We all got a good laugh out of that, and the mayor's obviously ignoring that advice with his new found environmental religion. All of which underscored what we said over a year ago: the mayor's plan, limited in garbage reduction scope and unmindful of Albany politics, was heading for the rocks.
In fact, as Sewell's story reveals, the mayor unveiled a consultant's study that "proved" that the Gansevoort transfer station would be cheaper to build than the assembly alternative on 36th Street. Here's the money quote: "But it is unclear whether Mr. Silver will get behind the mayor’s plan or yet again throw a wrench in the administration’s works. Mr. Bloomberg said that Mr. Silver’s staff had not yet briefed the speaker on the thick report the mayor brandished in the Blue Room." (emphasis added)
Is he serious? Holding a press conference on a report that contradicts the Speaker's position before briefing him doesn't seem to be good politics, does it? And calling it a "disaster," as the NY Sun story this morning reports, if the plan doesn't pass isn't the best gauntlet to put before the assembly.
Shelly, for his part, continues to see the 36th Street site as preferable: "They seem to be ignoring the questions that they were asked, which is what does it cost to do the alternative site," Mr. Silver said in Lower Manhattan." The mayor responded by referring to the city's report, another indication that we're going to have to cease and desist from any further use of these municipal liars for hire since so many of these consultants appear willing to say anything for their employers.
Remember when the city's DOS hired consultants who found that the clustering of transfer stations in Williamsburgh didn't pose any environmental problems? We all got a good laugh out of that, and the mayor's obviously ignoring that advice with his new found environmental religion. All of which underscored what we said over a year ago: the mayor's plan, limited in garbage reduction scope and unmindful of Albany politics, was heading for the rocks.
Pontificating Without a License
The DMI is at it again, this time in a blog post on the drivergate scandal. It seems that the resident blogger in question feels that the current imbrolio, one that has helped the governor's approval rate to plummet, is a Republican scam: "What we’re really seeing here is a partisan mudslinging contest between Governor Spitzer and Senate Republicans, who it appears are miffed that Spitzer has reveled in legislative sparring with them over the past 9 months and didn’t ask them first before coming out with his policy. There is such a cesspool of faulty logic, political pandering, and anti-immigrant invective here..."
Oh really? So the 52% or so of the Democrats who oppose Spitzer's license plan are what-brainwashed by the great right wing conspiracy. What's disturbing here is the complete absence of any recognition that the proliferation of illegals is a public safety nightmare-whether we talk about terrorism or simply the heinous criminality that cut down three kids in Newark, and Mary Nagle (raped and killed in New City).
What the Drum Majors and Majorettes don't acknowledge is the fact that they don't care about protecting the borders of this country, even in an era of terrorism. If the Democratic Part doesn't wise up on this issue, we'll all suffer egregiously in the near future.
Oh really? So the 52% or so of the Democrats who oppose Spitzer's license plan are what-brainwashed by the great right wing conspiracy. What's disturbing here is the complete absence of any recognition that the proliferation of illegals is a public safety nightmare-whether we talk about terrorism or simply the heinous criminality that cut down three kids in Newark, and Mary Nagle (raped and killed in New City).
What the Drum Majors and Majorettes don't acknowledge is the fact that they don't care about protecting the borders of this country, even in an era of terrorism. If the Democratic Part doesn't wise up on this issue, we'll all suffer egregiously in the near future.
Environmental Garbage
In yesterday's Daily Politics blog, and the Politicker as well, there's coverage of the mayor's press conference on the call for the assembly to give the green light to the opening of the Gansevoort transfer station. This locale was chosen under the mayor's "fair share" vision, one that calls on all of the boroughs to bear the garbage burden more equitably.
That's certainly a worthwhile objective, but as we have said on numerous occasions it begs the question of how to more efficiently-and fairly as well-dispose of the city's trash. The mayor has done what amounts to a classic case of misdirection; while everyone's watching the debate over "environmental justice," no one is paying attention to the fact that the city has no-that's none like in zero-realistic plan to reduce the waste that it exports.
On top of all of this, we're unable to see that this failure to reduce is costing the city's tax payers big time! Our most recent estimate is that the city is paying waste management $390 million a year for exporting the garbage in just three boroughs (not including Manhattan and Staten Island).
In addition, when we look at commercial waste, and this is important because some of the most noxious transfer stations in low income communities of color are privately owned, the mayor and the city council speaker(both were front and center at the press conference) nixed the garbage grinder pilot that could have been the first step towards eliminating the most environmentally objectionable putrescible commercial waste and the truck traffic that Assemblyman Espaillat finds so damaging.
As Daily Politics says about Adriano: "But Espaillat and his supporters have responded that this is a racial justice issue because reducing the number of garbage trucks in the outer boroughs will improve air quality and reduce asthma rates." If so, then all of these folks should be joining with Joel Rivera and Hiram Monseratte in their promotion of the garbage disposals for city food businesses. That is, if they can pull themselves away from all of this distracting poltical drama.
That's certainly a worthwhile objective, but as we have said on numerous occasions it begs the question of how to more efficiently-and fairly as well-dispose of the city's trash. The mayor has done what amounts to a classic case of misdirection; while everyone's watching the debate over "environmental justice," no one is paying attention to the fact that the city has no-that's none like in zero-realistic plan to reduce the waste that it exports.
On top of all of this, we're unable to see that this failure to reduce is costing the city's tax payers big time! Our most recent estimate is that the city is paying waste management $390 million a year for exporting the garbage in just three boroughs (not including Manhattan and Staten Island).
In addition, when we look at commercial waste, and this is important because some of the most noxious transfer stations in low income communities of color are privately owned, the mayor and the city council speaker(both were front and center at the press conference) nixed the garbage grinder pilot that could have been the first step towards eliminating the most environmentally objectionable putrescible commercial waste and the truck traffic that Assemblyman Espaillat finds so damaging.
As Daily Politics says about Adriano: "But Espaillat and his supporters have responded that this is a racial justice issue because reducing the number of garbage trucks in the outer boroughs will improve air quality and reduce asthma rates." If so, then all of these folks should be joining with Joel Rivera and Hiram Monseratte in their promotion of the garbage disposals for city food businesses. That is, if they can pull themselves away from all of this distracting poltical drama.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Building Inconsistency
In yesterday's NY Post there was an article on the David Weprin press conference against the mayor's congestion tax. At the presser, Weprin unveiled a number of alternatives and the Post focused on his proposal to raise fees to builders for their use of the streets in construction projects. As he told the Post: "The price for a three-month construction permit is $50, which encourages contractors to occupy street space beyond what is needed."
What was funny in all of this was the response from City Hall: "Mayoral aides appeared to dismiss the permit-hike idea saying the plan was based on "flawed logic." "Congestion isn't caused by dawdling construction. The construction industry has plenty of incentives to complete projects in a timely manner," one said."
Remember when the Committee to Keep NYC Congestion Tax Free issued its report on alternatives to the mayor's tax? The mayor's radio show response was that the unveiled alternatives did no address the funding issue for mass transit.
Well, we know that the increased construction in this city is in good measure a main culprit in greater traffic congestion-more so when you consider that the sheer volume of cars going into the CBD has remained relatively flat for the last ten years. So why not tax the big builders for their contribution to all of this, instead of shlubs who commute and make modest salaries?
In any case, the Weprin idea was a revenue enhancer. and the money raised could go to mass transit. It may be a drop in the bucket, but given the MTA deficit, what isn't?
What was funny in all of this was the response from City Hall: "Mayoral aides appeared to dismiss the permit-hike idea saying the plan was based on "flawed logic." "Congestion isn't caused by dawdling construction. The construction industry has plenty of incentives to complete projects in a timely manner," one said."
Remember when the Committee to Keep NYC Congestion Tax Free issued its report on alternatives to the mayor's tax? The mayor's radio show response was that the unveiled alternatives did no address the funding issue for mass transit.
Well, we know that the increased construction in this city is in good measure a main culprit in greater traffic congestion-more so when you consider that the sheer volume of cars going into the CBD has remained relatively flat for the last ten years. So why not tax the big builders for their contribution to all of this, instead of shlubs who commute and make modest salaries?
In any case, the Weprin idea was a revenue enhancer. and the money raised could go to mass transit. It may be a drop in the bucket, but given the MTA deficit, what isn't?
Liberty Not License
The controversy over the governor's plan to give drivers licenses of illegal aliens continues to roil, with a Siena College poll showing that 72% of all New Yorkers oppose the plan. Even a majority of Democrats polled think that it's not a good idea. Yet, as the NY Times reports this morning, the governor appears not to care what the public's view on all this is: “It’s what happens when you govern and make tough decisions, and do things that you believe are right, and don’t govern based on polls,” Mr. Spitzer said."
What's troubling in all of this, aside from the natioanl security implications of Spitzer's proposal, is the manner in which the governor has moved forward on it-no advanced warnings, no hearings, and no comprehensive report that clearly delineates the benefits that Spitzer feels are apparent in his initiative.
Without the benefit of a proper process, what awaits the governor is not very pretty. Opposition is gleefully lining up to attack the plan-both politically and legally. The furor has also managed to breathe new life into what had been the failing fortunes of Senate Majority Leade Joe Bruno-so much so that the NY Daily News' Bill Hammond, no friend of Bruno's, is counseling Spitzer to back down. As he writes this morning: "Spitzer must swallow his pride and put the brakes on his plan for issuing driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. Otherwise, it could drag him and what's left of his agenda off a cliff."
Strong words, but certainly good advice, as the governor's poll numbers continue to plummet and his editorial opponents see him going into free fall. As the Post opines this morning: "Read 'em and weep, Eliot. In a Siena College poll released yesterday, 72 percent of New Yorkers oppose the gov's license plan - while only 22 percent support it...Any way you look at it, those numbers add up to a political disaster for Eliot Spitzer."
We just can't think of why Eliot Spitzer, a man of great intelligence, would stick his head into this political oven. It's not only a terrible policy, but it's terribly unpopular as well. If Spitzer wants to show real courage this isn't the issue to use.
What's troubling in all of this, aside from the natioanl security implications of Spitzer's proposal, is the manner in which the governor has moved forward on it-no advanced warnings, no hearings, and no comprehensive report that clearly delineates the benefits that Spitzer feels are apparent in his initiative.
Without the benefit of a proper process, what awaits the governor is not very pretty. Opposition is gleefully lining up to attack the plan-both politically and legally. The furor has also managed to breathe new life into what had been the failing fortunes of Senate Majority Leade Joe Bruno-so much so that the NY Daily News' Bill Hammond, no friend of Bruno's, is counseling Spitzer to back down. As he writes this morning: "Spitzer must swallow his pride and put the brakes on his plan for issuing driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. Otherwise, it could drag him and what's left of his agenda off a cliff."
Strong words, but certainly good advice, as the governor's poll numbers continue to plummet and his editorial opponents see him going into free fall. As the Post opines this morning: "Read 'em and weep, Eliot. In a Siena College poll released yesterday, 72 percent of New Yorkers oppose the gov's license plan - while only 22 percent support it...Any way you look at it, those numbers add up to a political disaster for Eliot Spitzer."
We just can't think of why Eliot Spitzer, a man of great intelligence, would stick his head into this political oven. It's not only a terrible policy, but it's terribly unpopular as well. If Spitzer wants to show real courage this isn't the issue to use.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Handwriting on the Monsey Wal-Mart?
In today's Journal News, the paper reports on the stymied efforts of the Walmonster to make it into the final stages of the Ramapo review process. The Ramapo Planning Board is exercising proper due diligence in insisting that the store's developer provide as much detail as possible in regards to the mega impacts that Wal-Mart will have in the surrounding community. As the Journal says; "Since the Planning Board voted 5-1 in August against accepting a proposed environmental impact statement offered by the developer, the town has been awaiting revisions to the plan. The developer will have to first bring the new proposals to the Community Design and Review Board, which advises the Planning Board, before getting back onto the latter's agenda, Richard Ackerson, deputy town attorney for building, planning and zoning, said Friday."
But the big news in this morning's paper is the fact that Ramapo supervisor Chris St. Lawrence has apparently seen the light, particularly on the traffic nightmare that the Walmonster would generate, and is going public with his opposition to the store: "It's a regional store, but there's no regional solution," St. Lawrence said of traffic. "A store that size should be on a major highway, not on two-lane Route 59."
This is indeed good news, and it reflects the fact that the location chosen for this development is certainly far from ideal. It is why the project has instilled fierce opposition from our Alliance, and from the Monsey/Spring Valley communities: "Residents, merchants and local officials have expressed concerns about the traffic that the store would generate - 10,500 cars on Sundays and 8,000 on other days has been estimated by the Neighborhood Retail Alliance - and the impact it would have on side streets as well as main roads."
So, as the opposition hardens to this unnecessary intrusion on the surrounding residential neighborhoods, it is hoped that the developer, National Realty, will get the message: find a better location and stop throwing good money after bad.
But the big news in this morning's paper is the fact that Ramapo supervisor Chris St. Lawrence has apparently seen the light, particularly on the traffic nightmare that the Walmonster would generate, and is going public with his opposition to the store: "It's a regional store, but there's no regional solution," St. Lawrence said of traffic. "A store that size should be on a major highway, not on two-lane Route 59."
This is indeed good news, and it reflects the fact that the location chosen for this development is certainly far from ideal. It is why the project has instilled fierce opposition from our Alliance, and from the Monsey/Spring Valley communities: "Residents, merchants and local officials have expressed concerns about the traffic that the store would generate - 10,500 cars on Sundays and 8,000 on other days has been estimated by the Neighborhood Retail Alliance - and the impact it would have on side streets as well as main roads."
So, as the opposition hardens to this unnecessary intrusion on the surrounding residential neighborhoods, it is hoped that the developer, National Realty, will get the message: find a better location and stop throwing good money after bad.
Alternative Traffic Patterns
So the mayor wants to clean up our environment-apparently, it seems, at least one tax payer at a time. As AMNY pointed out on Saturday, Bloomberg reacted to the alternative congestion relief proposal advanced by our Congestion Tax Free NYC Committee, with the following observation: "Bloomberg ridiculed the coalition's proposal on his weekly radio show Friday, saying that it only addressed part of the overall issue. The advantage of his congestion pricing scheme, he argues, is that it not only reduces traffic but pours all the extra revenue from the fees into mass transit improvements."
Cha ching, cha ching! The shekels are out of the bag-it's all about the Benjamins for the billionaire Bloomberg. And has he really looked at the congestion tax's revenue projections-and compared them to the capital needs of the system? Here's his take on this: "So people that come up with a solution say they'll be fewer cars coming in -yeah that's great, but that's half the problem," he said. "Where's the money come from for the other side?"
And, once we determine that the revenues produced by the congestion tax-reduced astronomically by the ridiculous top-heavy administration cost-are inadequate, you can bet the the fees will rise like bakery yeast. Which means that-as we've said all along-the mayor's congestion plan is little else but another one of his revenue enhancement schemes, which is why the NY Times and the DMI crowd are so enthusiastically cheering him on.
So we shouldn't be so quick to dismiss alternatives to the congestion tax. In fact, we shouldn't be quick to do anything here-and especially because of the way in which the mayor has tried-in Bob Barker fashion-to bum rush us all to accept a poorly vetted idea, one that would never pass an independent smell test.
Cha ching, cha ching! The shekels are out of the bag-it's all about the Benjamins for the billionaire Bloomberg. And has he really looked at the congestion tax's revenue projections-and compared them to the capital needs of the system? Here's his take on this: "So people that come up with a solution say they'll be fewer cars coming in -yeah that's great, but that's half the problem," he said. "Where's the money come from for the other side?"
And, once we determine that the revenues produced by the congestion tax-reduced astronomically by the ridiculous top-heavy administration cost-are inadequate, you can bet the the fees will rise like bakery yeast. Which means that-as we've said all along-the mayor's congestion plan is little else but another one of his revenue enhancement schemes, which is why the NY Times and the DMI crowd are so enthusiastically cheering him on.
So we shouldn't be so quick to dismiss alternatives to the congestion tax. In fact, we shouldn't be quick to do anything here-and especially because of the way in which the mayor has tried-in Bob Barker fashion-to bum rush us all to accept a poorly vetted idea, one that would never pass an independent smell test.
Do as I Say, Not as I Do
In yesterday's NY Post, the paper reported on the humongous carbon footprint of Mayor Mike Bloomberg-you know, the same guy who has expressed such a concern over the environment that he wants to tax commuters in order to reduce congestion and clean up the air. In the colorful Post mode: "America's greenest mayor generates enough greenhouse gas to choke the Lincoln Tunnel."
So here's another case of someone who's concern for the environment extends to hectoring others to behave in certain ways while he himself flouts the greener lifestyle with audacious impunity. The next thing we'll here is that Bloomberg-a la Al Gore-has purchased enough "carbon credits" to offset his wanton disregard for the ideals he's advanced for all of the less regal among us (And perhaps cashing in on the scheme just like our newest Nobel laureate).
As the Post points out, with all of the mayor's properties; "That's a carbon footprint larger than what's produced by 18 average Americans, 53 Europeans or 404 Guatemalans. It's equivalent to keeping 69 cars a year on the road or lighting the Empire State Building for 4 ½ days." But that ain't all by a long shot.
This far flung carbon generating empire doesn't include the mayor's manner of transportation and his frequent jaunts to his Bermuda abode: "Bloomberg's carbon footprint swells to epic proportions when you include his penchant for reaching his far-flung getaways by one of the handful of private jets owned by his financial information firm, Bloomberg LP. In 2004 - before he took steps to conceal his weekend travel from the press - Bloomberg was averaging one four-hour round trip to Bermuda each month in his sleek Dassault Falcon 900.
Twelve such flights in a year would spew 40 tons of carbon emissions into the atmosphere, roughly as much as two Americans would produce in a year.
Now the mayor's PLaNYC seeks to cut the city's carbon emissions by a robust 7% in 2030-with a congestion tax being one of Bloomberg's key policy measures devised to achieve this laudable environmental goal. What gets us is that he has absolutely no sense of shame in this hypocritical advocacy. As the Post tells us: "The mayor says he has taken such steps himself. He's replaced incandescent light bulbs with more efficient fluorescent ones at City Hall."
We really shouldn't be surprised at all of this. As Steve Cuozzo pointed out, also in yesterday's NY Post, the mayor is extremely good at telling others how to live better. And in a real sense, Bloomberg's current environmental agenda emerges comfortably from his nanny mindset. As Cuozzo says; "For him, our waistlines, our sex lives, even the behavior of our pets are fair game for improvement. Just as rezoning will produce a more sleekly contoured New York, so will tinkering with our everyday habits yield a bountiful future where no one need be fat - or even, God forbid, stuck in traffic."
But why should Bloomberg, or Al Gore for that matter, practice what they preach. So many of the fawning glitterati are guilty of the same hypocrisy-advocating abstemiousness for others while they continue to live large, conscience assuaged, lecturing the peons on how to be better citizens of a world that they plunder at will for their own gratification.
We're from the Zero Mostel school, dramatized in The Producers: "When you got it, flaunt it!" Just don't flaunt it while scolding others to tighten their belts and live a supposed righteous lifestyle that you yourself won't deign to live. So as far as Mike Bloomberg is concerned, Tom Lehrer, commenting on the awarding of the Nobel Peace prize to Henry Kissinger is right a second time: "satire is now obsolete."
So here's another case of someone who's concern for the environment extends to hectoring others to behave in certain ways while he himself flouts the greener lifestyle with audacious impunity. The next thing we'll here is that Bloomberg-a la Al Gore-has purchased enough "carbon credits" to offset his wanton disregard for the ideals he's advanced for all of the less regal among us (And perhaps cashing in on the scheme just like our newest Nobel laureate).
As the Post points out, with all of the mayor's properties; "That's a carbon footprint larger than what's produced by 18 average Americans, 53 Europeans or 404 Guatemalans. It's equivalent to keeping 69 cars a year on the road or lighting the Empire State Building for 4 ½ days." But that ain't all by a long shot.
This far flung carbon generating empire doesn't include the mayor's manner of transportation and his frequent jaunts to his Bermuda abode: "Bloomberg's carbon footprint swells to epic proportions when you include his penchant for reaching his far-flung getaways by one of the handful of private jets owned by his financial information firm, Bloomberg LP. In 2004 - before he took steps to conceal his weekend travel from the press - Bloomberg was averaging one four-hour round trip to Bermuda each month in his sleek Dassault Falcon 900.
Twelve such flights in a year would spew 40 tons of carbon emissions into the atmosphere, roughly as much as two Americans would produce in a year.
Now the mayor's PLaNYC seeks to cut the city's carbon emissions by a robust 7% in 2030-with a congestion tax being one of Bloomberg's key policy measures devised to achieve this laudable environmental goal. What gets us is that he has absolutely no sense of shame in this hypocritical advocacy. As the Post tells us: "The mayor says he has taken such steps himself. He's replaced incandescent light bulbs with more efficient fluorescent ones at City Hall."
We really shouldn't be surprised at all of this. As Steve Cuozzo pointed out, also in yesterday's NY Post, the mayor is extremely good at telling others how to live better. And in a real sense, Bloomberg's current environmental agenda emerges comfortably from his nanny mindset. As Cuozzo says; "For him, our waistlines, our sex lives, even the behavior of our pets are fair game for improvement. Just as rezoning will produce a more sleekly contoured New York, so will tinkering with our everyday habits yield a bountiful future where no one need be fat - or even, God forbid, stuck in traffic."
But why should Bloomberg, or Al Gore for that matter, practice what they preach. So many of the fawning glitterati are guilty of the same hypocrisy-advocating abstemiousness for others while they continue to live large, conscience assuaged, lecturing the peons on how to be better citizens of a world that they plunder at will for their own gratification.
We're from the Zero Mostel school, dramatized in The Producers: "When you got it, flaunt it!" Just don't flaunt it while scolding others to tighten their belts and live a supposed righteous lifestyle that you yourself won't deign to live. So as far as Mike Bloomberg is concerned, Tom Lehrer, commenting on the awarding of the Nobel Peace prize to Henry Kissinger is right a second time: "satire is now obsolete."
Friday, October 12, 2007
Columbia Leaves the NYPD Hanging
As outrage continued to percolate up at Morningside Heights, and all over the city, because of a heinous hate crime, Columbia sat on possible evidence until, as the NY Daily News reports this morning, it eventually released potentially incriminating videotapes that it had held, citing "privacy" concerns.
Once again, when it comes to any question where the university's private issues might potentially conflict with the public interest, Columbia's first instinct is to protect it's own interests first. As the NY Post editorializes this morning: "Teachers College administrators' refusal to tender voluntary assistance to the NYPD in this matter is inexplicable. At best, it shows yet again the contempt Columbia University as a whole has for the community in which it resides, and into which it seeks to expand."
It's all Columbia, all of the time. And it's high time for the area's elected officials to hold the university's feet to the fire and insist that it come up with a good deal more concrete benefits for the surrounding community it wants to expand into. Enough of this institutional narcissism!
Once again, when it comes to any question where the university's private issues might potentially conflict with the public interest, Columbia's first instinct is to protect it's own interests first. As the NY Post editorializes this morning: "Teachers College administrators' refusal to tender voluntary assistance to the NYPD in this matter is inexplicable. At best, it shows yet again the contempt Columbia University as a whole has for the community in which it resides, and into which it seeks to expand."
It's all Columbia, all of the time. And it's high time for the area's elected officials to hold the university's feet to the fire and insist that it come up with a good deal more concrete benefits for the surrounding community it wants to expand into. Enough of this institutional narcissism!
My Way or the Highway-Not the Only Way
As the Congestion Commission begins to evaluate the merits of the mayor's expensive congestion tax scheme, opponents of the taxing mechanism submitted a number of less expensive alternatives-both to implement and to commuters pockets-for the commission to review. The NY Times reports on the proposed alternatives this morning, "Raising parking meter rates in Manhattan, creating more taxi stands and putting in place a series of other measures could achieve the same level of traffic reduction as Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s congestion pricing plan, according to a report by a group opposed to the mayor’s proposal."
Under the terms of the legislation, the commission is required to examine alternatives to the congestion tax, and while we're confident that there are any number of feasible alternatives, we're less so about the ability of the commission to separate the wheat from the chaff. Where is its staff?
Without the technical means to do so, the commission will be left with the option of making a political decision that is not based in ant way on sure technical grounds. What this means is that, should the body opt for the congestion tax, its decision will be subject to legal challenge, one that we feel will inevitably be successful.
What's remarkable in all of this is the fact that you have a cacophony of environmental voices weighing in on the putative beauty of the mayor's plan, yet the supposed public interest choir remains absolutely silent on the need for the plan to be subject to environmental review-a remarkable case of lockjaw from folks who will go to court on a moments notice if they feel that some developer has avoided an environmental review.
Their silence on this issue in regards to the congestion tax, it they're unable to find their voices fairly soon, will be to their long lasting shame. They will be exposed as cherry picking hypocrites; but even worse, their silence will potentially lead to the legal defeat of a plan that they've placed so much faith in.
The essence of the proposed alternatives-put forward by our own benefactor, Keep NYC Congestion Tax Free-is to find specific measures that directly impact on the city's congestion problem: "Chief among the measures is a proposal to increase greatly the number of metered parking spaces in Manhattan by putting meters on many blocks where parking is now free. The study also proposes raising the rate for on-street parking, doubling it in many areas and increasing it even more in the busiest parts of Manhattan."
In fact, as Crain's is reporting, and the NY Sun as well, Governor Spitzer is adopting one of the opponent's proposals: "The Spitzer administration is planning to convert a West Street garage from private parking to bus parking, potentially removing 175 commuter and tourist buses from idling along the lower Manhattan riverfront." It's a good start, and this is just one of the things that the city can do-before it puts additional tax burdens on commuters.
Under the terms of the legislation, the commission is required to examine alternatives to the congestion tax, and while we're confident that there are any number of feasible alternatives, we're less so about the ability of the commission to separate the wheat from the chaff. Where is its staff?
Without the technical means to do so, the commission will be left with the option of making a political decision that is not based in ant way on sure technical grounds. What this means is that, should the body opt for the congestion tax, its decision will be subject to legal challenge, one that we feel will inevitably be successful.
What's remarkable in all of this is the fact that you have a cacophony of environmental voices weighing in on the putative beauty of the mayor's plan, yet the supposed public interest choir remains absolutely silent on the need for the plan to be subject to environmental review-a remarkable case of lockjaw from folks who will go to court on a moments notice if they feel that some developer has avoided an environmental review.
Their silence on this issue in regards to the congestion tax, it they're unable to find their voices fairly soon, will be to their long lasting shame. They will be exposed as cherry picking hypocrites; but even worse, their silence will potentially lead to the legal defeat of a plan that they've placed so much faith in.
The essence of the proposed alternatives-put forward by our own benefactor, Keep NYC Congestion Tax Free-is to find specific measures that directly impact on the city's congestion problem: "Chief among the measures is a proposal to increase greatly the number of metered parking spaces in Manhattan by putting meters on many blocks where parking is now free. The study also proposes raising the rate for on-street parking, doubling it in many areas and increasing it even more in the busiest parts of Manhattan."
In fact, as Crain's is reporting, and the NY Sun as well, Governor Spitzer is adopting one of the opponent's proposals: "The Spitzer administration is planning to convert a West Street garage from private parking to bus parking, potentially removing 175 commuter and tourist buses from idling along the lower Manhattan riverfront." It's a good start, and this is just one of the things that the city can do-before it puts additional tax burdens on commuters.
The author of the Appleseed report, Hugh O'Neil, told the Times that the 13 traffic relief measures proposed could reduce city congestion by 7-11%. He admitted, however, that this was a "rough" estimate: “I would fully acknowledge that those numbers are speculative and would need to be subject to further analysis,” he said. “I think what the numbers legitimately show is that there are real options, real world alternatives, many of which are much simpler to implement than what the city has proposed.”
What is refreshing here, is the acknowledgement of uncertainty-something that is glaringly missing from the mayor's pronouncements, and from the huzzahs of the mayoral toadies-many of whom are in this environmental business and should definitely know better. So what is needed now is a recognition by the commission that it cannot adequately address the issues at hand without a full EIS, one that examines all of the potential reduction measures-their costs as well as their benefits-and bases a final determination on legitimate data and not self-serving rhetoric.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Limited Sense
In today's papers there are reports that Council Speaker Chris Queen may be considering repealing the city's term limits law. As Quinn coyly tells the NY Daily News: "We haven't taken a final decision yet on what we're doing on term limits...We obviously, myself and my colleagues, have to come to a final decision soon."
The possibility doesn't sit well with the NY Post editorialists who lash out at the prospects of seeing any more of the current term-limited occupants of the 51 council seats: "This is not something for which the public is clamoring. Quite the opposite. As far as the people are concerned, the issue is settled." Probably so, but is it a good idea that shouldn't be reasonably altered?
We think that a change is over due here. When the term limits referendum was first being considered a number of years ago, and we were asked for our opinion, we responded tongue-in-cheek: "While we are philosophically opposed to term limits, we're going to make an exception for this council." Whenever you examine the actual members of the body, as well as its legislative actions, there's always the temptation to say, "Throw the bums out!" The response is, however, a knee-jerk one.
The City Council, as it is currently situated within the City Charter, is considerably less powerful than the mayor. We have a strong executive form of municipal government, and while the two terms is just about right for the mayor, it simply doesn't work for the council-whose members are almost immediately scrambling for new jobs as soon as they assume their current council positions. In addition, with the loss of seniority and continuity the council is fair game for any strong mayor; so much so that the system of checks and balances gets attenuated.
We've seen this on a number of occasions with Speaker Quinn, but to be fair it could easily happen to any speaker whose tenure is so short lived, So if, as the NY Sun also points out, the speaker is seriously considering this, than it should be a policy that is forwarded in the right manner. Coouncilmembers should be granted an additional term, but the new law shouldn't go into effect for the current office holders. This way the principle can be advanced without the cries that the measure is self-interested-insuring that the initiative will be given a more reasoned examination.
The possibility doesn't sit well with the NY Post editorialists who lash out at the prospects of seeing any more of the current term-limited occupants of the 51 council seats: "This is not something for which the public is clamoring. Quite the opposite. As far as the people are concerned, the issue is settled." Probably so, but is it a good idea that shouldn't be reasonably altered?
We think that a change is over due here. When the term limits referendum was first being considered a number of years ago, and we were asked for our opinion, we responded tongue-in-cheek: "While we are philosophically opposed to term limits, we're going to make an exception for this council." Whenever you examine the actual members of the body, as well as its legislative actions, there's always the temptation to say, "Throw the bums out!" The response is, however, a knee-jerk one.
The City Council, as it is currently situated within the City Charter, is considerably less powerful than the mayor. We have a strong executive form of municipal government, and while the two terms is just about right for the mayor, it simply doesn't work for the council-whose members are almost immediately scrambling for new jobs as soon as they assume their current council positions. In addition, with the loss of seniority and continuity the council is fair game for any strong mayor; so much so that the system of checks and balances gets attenuated.
We've seen this on a number of occasions with Speaker Quinn, but to be fair it could easily happen to any speaker whose tenure is so short lived, So if, as the NY Sun also points out, the speaker is seriously considering this, than it should be a policy that is forwarded in the right manner. Coouncilmembers should be granted an additional term, but the new law shouldn't go into effect for the current office holders. This way the principle can be advanced without the cries that the measure is self-interested-insuring that the initiative will be given a more reasoned examination.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Dinkins' Reach Exceeds His Grasp
Liz is reporting on Chris Quinn's ABNY speech this morning and she gets a reaction from David Dinkins about who could possibly become the next mayor: "My views on who can be mayor, and I'm not trying to denigrate the people who are running, but almost anybody can be mayor. Getting elected is another thing! But if George Bush can get elected president of the United States, it seems to be damn near anybody could be mayor."
We rather think that DD didn't need to go that far to come up with a better analogy on mayoral qualifications. There is a more appropriate example closer to home.
We rather think that DD didn't need to go that far to come up with a better analogy on mayoral qualifications. There is a more appropriate example closer to home.
Mayor Johnny One Note
In yesterday's NY Daily News, the paper reported on the mayor's continued shilling for his congestion tax-in spite of the MTA's own report that the money needed for the necessary capital improvements. As the News points out: "Successful implementation of the city plan will require the MTA to provide a full complement of new and enhanced service," the report says. "Neither the operating nor capital costs associated with these improvements are provided for."
Well, never mind! The MTA's analysis points to the fact that the entire congestion scheme was never fully thought out. In the first place, all of the needed infrastructure upgrades must be put in place if the system is gonna be able to accommodate the increased ridership. Secondly, the revenue stream needs to be fully examined to determine whether the cash flow will be adequate to fund the improvements. Finally, the role of the fare and tolls in this calculus needs to be simultaneously factored into the discussion in order to get a legitimate handle on all of the costs.
Of course, while costs need to be examined with a keener eye, we also need to have a better idea about the actual benefits that will accrue. We can't accept the mayor's usual, "Because I said so," response to critics who point out that his congestion relief projections haven't been independently vetted. Only a full EIS-done by independent analysts- can do this.
On the congestion relief front, there was an interesting piece on the City Room Blog that looked at the choice of the 86th Street congestion boundary. Increasingly, it looks as if it was arbitrarily chosen with out regard to its traffic ramifications. As the blog post points out: "But where is Midtown? And, even more vexing for planners considering the mayor’s proposed congestion pricing plan, where is the city’s central business district? And how should the boundaries of the toll zone that drivers have to pay to enter on weekdays correspond to the (possibly undefined) boundaries of those amorphous regions? These are the kind of questions City Hall’s planners wrestled with before setting the zone’s northern boundary at 86th Street –- though that designation is far from final."
But you see, "City Hall wrestling" is not a substitute for sober evaluation. We really don't need the mayor playing pin the tail on the neighborhood behind closed doors. And we don't need self-appointed traffic guardians telling us that the boundaries work well from their own perspective. As the Times points out, "...residents near that boundary who are worried about added traffic, idling cars and excessive regulations following the designation to their street. Some people suggested the line should be farther downtown, closer to Midtown. Others wondered why it wasn’t farther north, rather than cutting through the middle of the Upper East Side and Upper West Side."
The larger point, however, may be that the idling and the extra congestion may be a feature of all of the boundary neighborhoods-and if it is, than there needs to be the proper environmental review of just what these impacts will be. The fact that the boundary may be arbitrary adds to the necessity of such a review. As a former transportation commissioner says; “I don’t think that 86th in any way is a firm boundary,” he said. “It is something that has been picked. It could have been 79th or 96th.” Some due diligence, you think?
Well, never mind! The MTA's analysis points to the fact that the entire congestion scheme was never fully thought out. In the first place, all of the needed infrastructure upgrades must be put in place if the system is gonna be able to accommodate the increased ridership. Secondly, the revenue stream needs to be fully examined to determine whether the cash flow will be adequate to fund the improvements. Finally, the role of the fare and tolls in this calculus needs to be simultaneously factored into the discussion in order to get a legitimate handle on all of the costs.
Of course, while costs need to be examined with a keener eye, we also need to have a better idea about the actual benefits that will accrue. We can't accept the mayor's usual, "Because I said so," response to critics who point out that his congestion relief projections haven't been independently vetted. Only a full EIS-done by independent analysts- can do this.
On the congestion relief front, there was an interesting piece on the City Room Blog that looked at the choice of the 86th Street congestion boundary. Increasingly, it looks as if it was arbitrarily chosen with out regard to its traffic ramifications. As the blog post points out: "But where is Midtown? And, even more vexing for planners considering the mayor’s proposed congestion pricing plan, where is the city’s central business district? And how should the boundaries of the toll zone that drivers have to pay to enter on weekdays correspond to the (possibly undefined) boundaries of those amorphous regions? These are the kind of questions City Hall’s planners wrestled with before setting the zone’s northern boundary at 86th Street –- though that designation is far from final."
But you see, "City Hall wrestling" is not a substitute for sober evaluation. We really don't need the mayor playing pin the tail on the neighborhood behind closed doors. And we don't need self-appointed traffic guardians telling us that the boundaries work well from their own perspective. As the Times points out, "...residents near that boundary who are worried about added traffic, idling cars and excessive regulations following the designation to their street. Some people suggested the line should be farther downtown, closer to Midtown. Others wondered why it wasn’t farther north, rather than cutting through the middle of the Upper East Side and Upper West Side."
The larger point, however, may be that the idling and the extra congestion may be a feature of all of the boundary neighborhoods-and if it is, than there needs to be the proper environmental review of just what these impacts will be. The fact that the boundary may be arbitrary adds to the necessity of such a review. As a former transportation commissioner says; “I don’t think that 86th in any way is a firm boundary,” he said. “It is something that has been picked. It could have been 79th or 96th.” Some due diligence, you think?
Take Out the Papers and the Trash
In today's NY Daily News an Op-Ed contributor really nails it with a wonderful rant about the city's sanitation enforcement procedures. Columnist Dolores Prida asks when did she "become my brother's sweeper...?" Prida wants to know why homeowners are ticketed because a bunch of litterbugs drop debris in front of her East Harlem home. As she says, "Nobody had bothered to tell me that homeowners are punished for the debris passersby leave in front of their homes - both on the sidewalk and on the street, up to 18 inches from the curb."
Indeed. And what about store owners who are similarly ticketed-or given a summons because rice that was packaged by a manufacturer in Louisiana failed to hold its moisture-and therefore its weight-in the New York winter. Welcome to the Big Apple where everything that moves-or doesn't-is liable to subject to one fine or another.
Poor Prida! Here's a woman who has resorted to paying a super at a nearby building to sweep for her, yet the summonses keep on coming. And forget about going down to fight the fine: "Through the years I've made my case at hearings before the Environmental Control Board's stone-faced judges and written letters to the local Community Board and my Council member.
The results: nada."
Welcome to world of the neighborhood retailer-a frustrating existence of incomprehensible regulations and opaque adjudication procedures. And, as Prida points out, this all amounts to a hidden tax: "The annual cost of this travesty is the equivalent of a second, hidden property tax for the individual homeowner. This year my bill for sweeping or not sweeping my brother's trash will be more than $1,000."
The city's administrative proceedings as well as its municipal code, is badly in need of an overhaul. Dolores Prida's experience is the one that all shopkeepers in the city are forced to deal with every day-and the city treats the complaints with a deaf ear. Is it any wonder that NYC is one of the most expensive places to live and do business in? Imagine what we all could gain if thew city cleaned house of all of these useless ALJs enforcing arcane regs that do little if anything to protect the public interest.
Indeed. And what about store owners who are similarly ticketed-or given a summons because rice that was packaged by a manufacturer in Louisiana failed to hold its moisture-and therefore its weight-in the New York winter. Welcome to the Big Apple where everything that moves-or doesn't-is liable to subject to one fine or another.
Poor Prida! Here's a woman who has resorted to paying a super at a nearby building to sweep for her, yet the summonses keep on coming. And forget about going down to fight the fine: "Through the years I've made my case at hearings before the Environmental Control Board's stone-faced judges and written letters to the local Community Board and my Council member.
The results: nada."
Welcome to world of the neighborhood retailer-a frustrating existence of incomprehensible regulations and opaque adjudication procedures. And, as Prida points out, this all amounts to a hidden tax: "The annual cost of this travesty is the equivalent of a second, hidden property tax for the individual homeowner. This year my bill for sweeping or not sweeping my brother's trash will be more than $1,000."
The city's administrative proceedings as well as its municipal code, is badly in need of an overhaul. Dolores Prida's experience is the one that all shopkeepers in the city are forced to deal with every day-and the city treats the complaints with a deaf ear. Is it any wonder that NYC is one of the most expensive places to live and do business in? Imagine what we all could gain if thew city cleaned house of all of these useless ALJs enforcing arcane regs that do little if anything to protect the public interest.
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
Licensed Media Obfuscation
The growing controversy over the granting of drivers licenses to illegal immigrants has gotten a good deal of bipartisan opposition-with such disparate lumineries as Mike Bloomberg and Ed Koch questioning the wisdom of the Spitzer policy. The most forceful opposition, and some would say the most credible, has come from NYC Police Commissioner Ray Kelly.
Kelly's concern is, of course, the issue of terrorism and the belief that the governor's initiative would make us all less safe. What is strange, however, is the way in which this morning's NY Times story frames the debate. Saying that the Spitzer policy "finds support," the paper does what seems to us to be an exhaustive search for "security" and "terrorism" experts who support what the governor wants to do.
What the paper doesn't do, and this is certainly a puzzle, is cite the views of Kelly-or anyone that anyone has ever heard of as a terrorism expert. Some professor at West Point is the best the paper could do? All of this is obviously designed to hawk the Times' own view on the issue. To wit: "But the governor’s policy is drawing support from some terrorism and security experts, who, like Mr. Spitzer, regard it as a way of bringing a hidden population into the open and ultimately making the system more secure, not to mention getting more drivers on the road licensed and insured."
If the Times had any really recognized terrorism expert on board for this piece, that person would have been the lead. Instead we get a headline that, when the full story is examined, doesn't even accurately lay out what the article reports. In fact, the story leans more heavily on those who oppose the governor's policy.
The key for us is the following observation: "The success of the policy, they say, will rest on the reliability of new technology that Mr. Spitzer wants installed in Department of Motor Vehicles offices to verify the authenticity of passports and other documents that the illegal immigrants will be required to submit when applying for licenses." Now we don't know about you, but does any one really want to rely on the personnel at the DMV for their security from terrorism?
What the critics get right is that it is possible to give illegals some form of secondary license-much as non-drivers get DMV ids for identification purposes-without corrupting the identification process for citizens. As one county clerk told the Times: "Mr. Merola added that his concerns would have been allayed if the governor had proposed creating a second class of driver’s license for the illegal immigrants. Chuck Canterbury, the national president of the Fraternal Order of Police, said his group has generally opposed giving licenses to people who cannot prove they are here legally. However, he said he would not necessarily object to a system like the one Mr. Spitzer is proposing, as long as the verification technology was adequate to prevent fraud."
The governor for his part, and as the former chief law enforcement officer of New York State, seems to be reacting quite emotionally to the justified criticism of his policy. This is not part of some right wing rant, it's about safety and putting the rights of citizens over those of people who have broken the law to get into the country.
So when Spitzer says, “We are not talking about letting more people into this country,” he said, “we are talking about being practical about those who are already here,” he is simply missing the point. As the NY Post editorial points out this morning, the only issue here is insuring the safety of New Yorkers.
Kelly's concern is, of course, the issue of terrorism and the belief that the governor's initiative would make us all less safe. What is strange, however, is the way in which this morning's NY Times story frames the debate. Saying that the Spitzer policy "finds support," the paper does what seems to us to be an exhaustive search for "security" and "terrorism" experts who support what the governor wants to do.
What the paper doesn't do, and this is certainly a puzzle, is cite the views of Kelly-or anyone that anyone has ever heard of as a terrorism expert. Some professor at West Point is the best the paper could do? All of this is obviously designed to hawk the Times' own view on the issue. To wit: "But the governor’s policy is drawing support from some terrorism and security experts, who, like Mr. Spitzer, regard it as a way of bringing a hidden population into the open and ultimately making the system more secure, not to mention getting more drivers on the road licensed and insured."
If the Times had any really recognized terrorism expert on board for this piece, that person would have been the lead. Instead we get a headline that, when the full story is examined, doesn't even accurately lay out what the article reports. In fact, the story leans more heavily on those who oppose the governor's policy.
The key for us is the following observation: "The success of the policy, they say, will rest on the reliability of new technology that Mr. Spitzer wants installed in Department of Motor Vehicles offices to verify the authenticity of passports and other documents that the illegal immigrants will be required to submit when applying for licenses." Now we don't know about you, but does any one really want to rely on the personnel at the DMV for their security from terrorism?
What the critics get right is that it is possible to give illegals some form of secondary license-much as non-drivers get DMV ids for identification purposes-without corrupting the identification process for citizens. As one county clerk told the Times: "Mr. Merola added that his concerns would have been allayed if the governor had proposed creating a second class of driver’s license for the illegal immigrants. Chuck Canterbury, the national president of the Fraternal Order of Police, said his group has generally opposed giving licenses to people who cannot prove they are here legally. However, he said he would not necessarily object to a system like the one Mr. Spitzer is proposing, as long as the verification technology was adequate to prevent fraud."
The governor for his part, and as the former chief law enforcement officer of New York State, seems to be reacting quite emotionally to the justified criticism of his policy. This is not part of some right wing rant, it's about safety and putting the rights of citizens over those of people who have broken the law to get into the country.
So when Spitzer says, “We are not talking about letting more people into this country,” he said, “we are talking about being practical about those who are already here,” he is simply missing the point. As the NY Post editorial points out this morning, the only issue here is insuring the safety of New Yorkers.
Monday, October 08, 2007
MTA: "Check Please!"
The NY Times is reporting today that the mayor's traffic tax will have to come with a huge price tag. Here's the paper's lead: "Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s plan to ease traffic congestion by charging motorists who drive into the busiest parts of Manhattan would cost hundreds of millions of dollars for new bus and subway services and mass transit improvements to accommodate tens of thousands of new riders, transportation officials say."
The MTA's actual estimate here is $767 million-and that's their estimate. Once cost overruns and unanticipated charges are factored in, this price tag will only get higher. This cost is a result of the anticipated ridership increase if the mayor is able to tax folks enough to disincentive driving into the CBD.
It also means that the $8 initial fee will escalate in conjunction with the higher capital costs. As the Times puts it: "Eventually, the transit agency said, revenues from congestion pricing would help cover the costs." Which means that there will not only be a higher congestion tax, but the fare will have to be raised to cover interim costs as well ("unfunded capital costs").
Another interesting item in the Times article is a report from the NYS DOT: "A second report, by the State Department of Transportation, said that congestion pricing would affect state highways and transportation lines outside the jurisdiction of the transit agency. But it said it did not have enough data to predict traffic changes and could not estimate the costs..."
This seems to mean that there will be a traffic ripple effect, and that no one can really know how the mayor's plan will impact areas outside of the CBD-something that has led us to demand the full EIS be done on this tax scheme. It is an unsupportable shot in the dark that will inevitably be paid for by perpetually escalating fees. As plan foe Richard Brodsky told the Times: “You’re bumping up against almost $1 billion in unfunded capital costs...Both reports are saying there are tremendous uncertainties. You have to have all these mass transit improvements in place before the plan goes into effect. And you’re probably going to see the $8 fee doubled almost immediately.”
The breaks need to be put on all of this, and a full evaluation of all aspects of the scheme needs to be done before there is any determination is made about what's in the public interest. No one should be simply taking the mayor's word.
The MTA's actual estimate here is $767 million-and that's their estimate. Once cost overruns and unanticipated charges are factored in, this price tag will only get higher. This cost is a result of the anticipated ridership increase if the mayor is able to tax folks enough to disincentive driving into the CBD.
It also means that the $8 initial fee will escalate in conjunction with the higher capital costs. As the Times puts it: "Eventually, the transit agency said, revenues from congestion pricing would help cover the costs." Which means that there will not only be a higher congestion tax, but the fare will have to be raised to cover interim costs as well ("unfunded capital costs").
Another interesting item in the Times article is a report from the NYS DOT: "A second report, by the State Department of Transportation, said that congestion pricing would affect state highways and transportation lines outside the jurisdiction of the transit agency. But it said it did not have enough data to predict traffic changes and could not estimate the costs..."
This seems to mean that there will be a traffic ripple effect, and that no one can really know how the mayor's plan will impact areas outside of the CBD-something that has led us to demand the full EIS be done on this tax scheme. It is an unsupportable shot in the dark that will inevitably be paid for by perpetually escalating fees. As plan foe Richard Brodsky told the Times: “You’re bumping up against almost $1 billion in unfunded capital costs...Both reports are saying there are tremendous uncertainties. You have to have all these mass transit improvements in place before the plan goes into effect. And you’re probably going to see the $8 fee doubled almost immediately.”
The breaks need to be put on all of this, and a full evaluation of all aspects of the scheme needs to be done before there is any determination is made about what's in the public interest. No one should be simply taking the mayor's word.
CU and FCRC
In yesterday's NY Daily News the paper's Errol Louis writes an epitaph for Develop Don't Destroy, the group that has tried to stop the Atlantic Yards project. In his column Louis points out that Daniel Goldstein, DDD's leader, is a relative newcomer to the area and his opposition is standing in the way of a myriad of benefits that could accrue to other less fortunate citizens of the Prospect Heights neighborhood.
Louis particularly objects to the David vs. Goliath narrative that opponents have promoted: "What might have once appeared to be a David-Goliath struggle of a few courageous Brooklynites fighting against a big, bad developer is actually a small group of Davids harming the interests of a thousand other Davids - fellow Brooklynites desperate for the 2,000-plus units of affordable housing that the development would provide."
Which brings us to the comparison between the two major eminent domain fights in the city-Atlantic Yards and Columbia. Our position is obviously biased by the fact that we have and continue to work for FCRC on the Nets coming to Brooklyn-something that we've always seen as meritorious. That being said, the use of the state power to take people's property should always be seen as problematic and, as we have commented, shouldn't be done without really good cause.
What strikes us about Columbia, in contrast with the FCRC efforts, is the almost total lack of engagement with the West Harlem community-and its leading business owner Nick Sprayregen. On top of this, there appears to be little community benefit on the table, certainly nothing that approaches the kind of affordable housing deal that was crafted in Brooklyn. Columbia seems to feel that its expansion, and its expansion alone, is something that should generate the concomitant community obeisance. "Just be thankful that we're here", seems to underscore the university's rhetoric.
The major issue all over the city is affordable housing-for the middle class as well as for the poor. There is no question that CU's expansion should be stymied if the university is unable to devise some concrete effort in this area. All of the community's elected officials should be four square behind this bedrock principle.
Louis particularly objects to the David vs. Goliath narrative that opponents have promoted: "What might have once appeared to be a David-Goliath struggle of a few courageous Brooklynites fighting against a big, bad developer is actually a small group of Davids harming the interests of a thousand other Davids - fellow Brooklynites desperate for the 2,000-plus units of affordable housing that the development would provide."
Which brings us to the comparison between the two major eminent domain fights in the city-Atlantic Yards and Columbia. Our position is obviously biased by the fact that we have and continue to work for FCRC on the Nets coming to Brooklyn-something that we've always seen as meritorious. That being said, the use of the state power to take people's property should always be seen as problematic and, as we have commented, shouldn't be done without really good cause.
What strikes us about Columbia, in contrast with the FCRC efforts, is the almost total lack of engagement with the West Harlem community-and its leading business owner Nick Sprayregen. On top of this, there appears to be little community benefit on the table, certainly nothing that approaches the kind of affordable housing deal that was crafted in Brooklyn. Columbia seems to feel that its expansion, and its expansion alone, is something that should generate the concomitant community obeisance. "Just be thankful that we're here", seems to underscore the university's rhetoric.
The major issue all over the city is affordable housing-for the middle class as well as for the poor. There is no question that CU's expansion should be stymied if the university is unable to devise some concrete effort in this area. All of the community's elected officials should be four square behind this bedrock principle.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
