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.
Friday, July 06, 2007
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.
Thursday, July 05, 2007
Columbia's Courage of it Evictions
In today's NY Post we read about what we believe will be the first of a series of evictions should Columbia University be allowed to expand with impunity into West Harlem. This time it is a group of struggling small business folks-auto mechanics who are being dispossessed with no plan for their relocation.
As the Post reports, "More than twenty auto mechanics at three auto repair shops near 131st Street and Broadway in Manhattan will be out of work by July 31st, as they become the first economic casualties in Columbia's campus-expansion plan." They most certainly won't be the last, and everyone in West Harlem should be on guard.
The problem here is that the mechanics were simply subleasing their space and have no legal recourse; but after all, what's their plight when compared with the potential cure for Alzheimer's? The larger issue, however, is the fate of the residents of West Harlem, folks that will be either directly or indirectly evicted as a result of the Columbia plan.
Their fate is underscored by the column in today's NY Daily News by Community Service Society head David Jones. What Jones highlights is the less than stellar record of the mayor in the area of affordable housing-a glaring disconnect between the rhetoric and the reality of the administration's efforts. As Jones writes: "But it's time to check that image against the record. The city's affordable housing picture continues to worsen as the mayor's new housing goes up. Rents are soaring, placing a tremendous burden on low and middle income tenants."
As we have commented extensively before, the mayor is permitting Columbia to expand into the largest underutilized parcel of land in Manhattan with absolutely no additional housing. On top of this scandal, the university will be evicting 400 low income tenants from the expansion foot print. BP Stringer, concerned with a rising tide of gentrification, has proposed his own rezoning plan to try to mitigate Columbia's impact. This is a half-measure.
The Columbia plan needs to be immediately derailed. We have already seen how the collusion of the consultants is hot wiring the review process. Now the more substantive issues of displacement need to be addressed-something that can't and won't be done while this sham ULURP process moves inexorably forward.
As the Post reports, "More than twenty auto mechanics at three auto repair shops near 131st Street and Broadway in Manhattan will be out of work by July 31st, as they become the first economic casualties in Columbia's campus-expansion plan." They most certainly won't be the last, and everyone in West Harlem should be on guard.
The problem here is that the mechanics were simply subleasing their space and have no legal recourse; but after all, what's their plight when compared with the potential cure for Alzheimer's? The larger issue, however, is the fate of the residents of West Harlem, folks that will be either directly or indirectly evicted as a result of the Columbia plan.
Their fate is underscored by the column in today's NY Daily News by Community Service Society head David Jones. What Jones highlights is the less than stellar record of the mayor in the area of affordable housing-a glaring disconnect between the rhetoric and the reality of the administration's efforts. As Jones writes: "But it's time to check that image against the record. The city's affordable housing picture continues to worsen as the mayor's new housing goes up. Rents are soaring, placing a tremendous burden on low and middle income tenants."
As we have commented extensively before, the mayor is permitting Columbia to expand into the largest underutilized parcel of land in Manhattan with absolutely no additional housing. On top of this scandal, the university will be evicting 400 low income tenants from the expansion foot print. BP Stringer, concerned with a rising tide of gentrification, has proposed his own rezoning plan to try to mitigate Columbia's impact. This is a half-measure.
The Columbia plan needs to be immediately derailed. We have already seen how the collusion of the consultants is hot wiring the review process. Now the more substantive issues of displacement need to be addressed-something that can't and won't be done while this sham ULURP process moves inexorably forward.
Indigestion Pricing
There's a fascinating piece in yesterday's NY Times business section that focuses on the pricing dynamics of E-Z Pass systems. As the story tells us, "As a result of E-Z Pass and its ilk, even many adults don't notice the cost of a toll at all...Which raises an interesting question: If you don't know how much you're paying for something, will you notice when the price goes up? Or has E-Z Pass, for all of its benefits, also made it easier for toll collectors to take your money?"
The answer, unfortunately, is a definite yes. As the Times story tells us, a young economist pulled decades of toll records and did a comparative study that found a clear pattern: "After an electronic system is put in place, tolls start rising sharply." In similar situations, tolls with an electronic system in place soon become about 30% more expensive than the tolls collected manually.
In an electronic economy, with E-Z Pass style paying rapidly becoming the norm, "it's much easier to be carefree." That is until you get the bill. The beauty of cash payments comes from the fact that you're always aware of the expense. Milton Friedman's comments about the withholding tax concept that he pioneered many years ago is germane to this discussion: ""'It never occurred to me at the time...that I was helping to develop machinery that would make possible a government that I would come to criticize severely as too large, too intrusive, too destructive of freedom.'"
Which brings us to the mayor's plan to tax commuters using electronic technology. Now we've already seen how our friends in London have rapidly doubled the initial fee. And we've commented on just how little the truck charge will relieve congestion-and will really be used exclusively to raise revenues. What we're facing than, is a very easy and convenient way to continue to hike commuter charges with the least amount of resistance.
It is, however, even worse than that. What NYC commuters are facing is the creation of an elaborate collection behemoth-another public authority that is unaccountable to the citizens- whose technology is questionable, but whose collection methods-much like the city's PVB-will be unassailable. The mistakes will be legion, but the remediation of these errors will be nonexistent. As Ray Keating wrote recently in Newsday; "Just what we need-another unaccountable public authority so politicians can borrow and spend more money without having to get approval from all of those pesky voters."
It would be an expensive weapon against the city's business and working classes, a weapon that is much too dangerous to be left in the hands of city bureaucrats. Alternate methods of raising money for mass transit need to be explored and this elaborate and exploitative scheme needs to be permanently shelved.
The answer, unfortunately, is a definite yes. As the Times story tells us, a young economist pulled decades of toll records and did a comparative study that found a clear pattern: "After an electronic system is put in place, tolls start rising sharply." In similar situations, tolls with an electronic system in place soon become about 30% more expensive than the tolls collected manually.
In an electronic economy, with E-Z Pass style paying rapidly becoming the norm, "it's much easier to be carefree." That is until you get the bill. The beauty of cash payments comes from the fact that you're always aware of the expense. Milton Friedman's comments about the withholding tax concept that he pioneered many years ago is germane to this discussion: ""'It never occurred to me at the time...that I was helping to develop machinery that would make possible a government that I would come to criticize severely as too large, too intrusive, too destructive of freedom.'"
Which brings us to the mayor's plan to tax commuters using electronic technology. Now we've already seen how our friends in London have rapidly doubled the initial fee. And we've commented on just how little the truck charge will relieve congestion-and will really be used exclusively to raise revenues. What we're facing than, is a very easy and convenient way to continue to hike commuter charges with the least amount of resistance.
It is, however, even worse than that. What NYC commuters are facing is the creation of an elaborate collection behemoth-another public authority that is unaccountable to the citizens- whose technology is questionable, but whose collection methods-much like the city's PVB-will be unassailable. The mistakes will be legion, but the remediation of these errors will be nonexistent. As Ray Keating wrote recently in Newsday; "Just what we need-another unaccountable public authority so politicians can borrow and spend more money without having to get approval from all of those pesky voters."
It would be an expensive weapon against the city's business and working classes, a weapon that is much too dangerous to be left in the hands of city bureaucrats. Alternate methods of raising money for mass transit need to be explored and this elaborate and exploitative scheme needs to be permanently shelved.
Partnership's Ill Wind
In today's NY Daily News we are witness to one of the most dishonest political ads that we've seen in a long time; made even more dishonest because of the nature of the hypocrites that are putting these ads out. The dishonesty ranks right up there with the daisy twirling little girl in the anti-Goldwater ads of 1964 vintage, you know, the ones that told us to vote like our lives depended on it.
The ads showing another little girl, this time with an asthma inhaler, are designed to generate support for the mayor's congestion tax. The ad's phony apocalyptic warning reads: "She cannot hold her breathe waiting for Albany to act." Which environmental group placed this ad? None other than the NYC Partnership, a group made up of real estate moguls who's idea of environmentalism has traditionally meant simply writing a conscience-salving check to the NRDC, or some other environmental cause.
What makes the whole situation even worse are two factors that are left unmentioned by the Partnership's lame attempt at public service. In the first place there is absolutely no connection that has been demonstrated between auto emissions and asthma. The only decent scientific correlation that has been found is the one that focuses on insect and rodent droppings-and the prevalence of food waste that attracts this vector problem.
Over the last five years the faux-environmentalists at City Hall have fought the Alliance on the legalization of food waste disposers-the one methodology that would eliminate the food source for the disease-generating vermin. No concern with asthma or community public health here.
In addition, what the mayor and his toadies don't mention is that NYC's air, once the dirtiest in the nation, has never been cleaner-something that all of the environmental supporters of the mayors plan should realize, even if the Partnership, new to the issue, does not.
Secondly, taking the Partnership's argument at face value for a moment, if car emissions are a big contributing factor for the city's high rates of asthma, then why are some of the group's leading supporters building so many auto-dependent shopping malls all over the city. Yes we mean the likes of Steve Ross of Related and Steve Roth of Vronado. Two of Related's biggest developments are in the South Bronx-right along "asthma-alley," and in East New York, one of the poorest sections of Brooklyn.
So if the Partnership is really looking "to protect our kids' health now," it should start by simply shutting up and stop its lying in the name of clean air; instead it should quietly discontinue the two Gateway projects so as to protect the health of the children that they hold so dear.
The ads showing another little girl, this time with an asthma inhaler, are designed to generate support for the mayor's congestion tax. The ad's phony apocalyptic warning reads: "She cannot hold her breathe waiting for Albany to act." Which environmental group placed this ad? None other than the NYC Partnership, a group made up of real estate moguls who's idea of environmentalism has traditionally meant simply writing a conscience-salving check to the NRDC, or some other environmental cause.
What makes the whole situation even worse are two factors that are left unmentioned by the Partnership's lame attempt at public service. In the first place there is absolutely no connection that has been demonstrated between auto emissions and asthma. The only decent scientific correlation that has been found is the one that focuses on insect and rodent droppings-and the prevalence of food waste that attracts this vector problem.
Over the last five years the faux-environmentalists at City Hall have fought the Alliance on the legalization of food waste disposers-the one methodology that would eliminate the food source for the disease-generating vermin. No concern with asthma or community public health here.
In addition, what the mayor and his toadies don't mention is that NYC's air, once the dirtiest in the nation, has never been cleaner-something that all of the environmental supporters of the mayors plan should realize, even if the Partnership, new to the issue, does not.
Secondly, taking the Partnership's argument at face value for a moment, if car emissions are a big contributing factor for the city's high rates of asthma, then why are some of the group's leading supporters building so many auto-dependent shopping malls all over the city. Yes we mean the likes of Steve Ross of Related and Steve Roth of Vronado. Two of Related's biggest developments are in the South Bronx-right along "asthma-alley," and in East New York, one of the poorest sections of Brooklyn.
So if the Partnership is really looking "to protect our kids' health now," it should start by simply shutting up and stop its lying in the name of clean air; instead it should quietly discontinue the two Gateway projects so as to protect the health of the children that they hold so dear.
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
Poverty of Philosophy
We have commented before about the mayor's absurd plan to pay children and families to behave better. In the latest Weekly Standard the Manhattan Institute's Heather McDonald lashes into the mayor's program and, in the modern currency, thoroughly deconstructs it: "Anyone interested in seeing what Bloomberg's rhetoric of 'innovative,' nonpartisan problem-solving means in practice will find his new poverty plan illuminating. It combines a clever technocratic veneer with a profound ignorance of civil society."
McDonald goes on to say that if the Bloomberg war on poverty is adopted by city government (it is currently privately funded), "it could be one of the most destructive welfare policies ever devised." What the mayor and his minions-is there anyone at City Hall advising the mayor and urging caution?- fail to realize is the extent to which decades of welfare dependency have fostered a "culture of poverty" that has eroded the will of the recipients: a subculture where even free medical care for ones children is not being utilized by parents.
How to end this cycle of dependency is not easily answered. For a good many, though, the answer lay in the simple programmatic refusal to continue to subsidize folks forever-in other words, welfare reform that set deadlines so people understood that their benefits wouldn't last forever. In NYC Mayor Giuliani spearheaded this effort and was excoriated by all of the same folks that have been fawning over Bloomberg's "less confrontational" style.
The reality, however, is that Rudy was a paradigm shifter, while Bloomberg is a Back to the Future version of John Lindsay. There is no way that Mayor Mike would have ever challenged the comfortable liberal shibboleths that had held sway in this city for years. Nor would he, in this same vein, have adopted the "broken windows" concept of policing that helped to facilitate the dramatic decreases in crime that have made it easier for Bloomberg to govern.
The fact is that the mayor has been coasting on Giuliani's efforts, and has been doing so while accepting the encomiums of people who harshly resisted Giuliani's agenda. It is quite nauseating to witness the level of hypocrisy from those who, while benefiting from Giuliani's achievements, praise Bloomberg for his more acceptable leadership style.
Which brings us to Bloomberg's grotesque anti-poverty scheme. McDonald rightly points out that the plan does recognize the fact that attitudinal change is essential if we're going to address this resistant subculture of poverty. It runs aground, however, on the mistaken belief that a cash transfer-like some kind of corporate subsidy-will alter not only current behavior but future decisions as well.
It will do no such thing. What it will do, is create another overarching bureaucratic apparatus that will continue to expand as the recipients and all of their "advocates" establish another feeding trough that will institutionalize dependency even further. As McDonald points out, if Mayor Mike really wants to do something dramatic about poverty he should launch a pro-marriage campaign. But that would put Mike at odds with all of his liberal salons and would actually involve making people responsible for their behavior.
Wait till Bloomberg tries to sell this on a national stage; he'll be exposed as the liberal elitist that he is, and will be innovated right out of the race. We're actually looking forward to watching this happen.
McDonald goes on to say that if the Bloomberg war on poverty is adopted by city government (it is currently privately funded), "it could be one of the most destructive welfare policies ever devised." What the mayor and his minions-is there anyone at City Hall advising the mayor and urging caution?- fail to realize is the extent to which decades of welfare dependency have fostered a "culture of poverty" that has eroded the will of the recipients: a subculture where even free medical care for ones children is not being utilized by parents.
How to end this cycle of dependency is not easily answered. For a good many, though, the answer lay in the simple programmatic refusal to continue to subsidize folks forever-in other words, welfare reform that set deadlines so people understood that their benefits wouldn't last forever. In NYC Mayor Giuliani spearheaded this effort and was excoriated by all of the same folks that have been fawning over Bloomberg's "less confrontational" style.
The reality, however, is that Rudy was a paradigm shifter, while Bloomberg is a Back to the Future version of John Lindsay. There is no way that Mayor Mike would have ever challenged the comfortable liberal shibboleths that had held sway in this city for years. Nor would he, in this same vein, have adopted the "broken windows" concept of policing that helped to facilitate the dramatic decreases in crime that have made it easier for Bloomberg to govern.
The fact is that the mayor has been coasting on Giuliani's efforts, and has been doing so while accepting the encomiums of people who harshly resisted Giuliani's agenda. It is quite nauseating to witness the level of hypocrisy from those who, while benefiting from Giuliani's achievements, praise Bloomberg for his more acceptable leadership style.
Which brings us to Bloomberg's grotesque anti-poverty scheme. McDonald rightly points out that the plan does recognize the fact that attitudinal change is essential if we're going to address this resistant subculture of poverty. It runs aground, however, on the mistaken belief that a cash transfer-like some kind of corporate subsidy-will alter not only current behavior but future decisions as well.
It will do no such thing. What it will do, is create another overarching bureaucratic apparatus that will continue to expand as the recipients and all of their "advocates" establish another feeding trough that will institutionalize dependency even further. As McDonald points out, if Mayor Mike really wants to do something dramatic about poverty he should launch a pro-marriage campaign. But that would put Mike at odds with all of his liberal salons and would actually involve making people responsible for their behavior.
Wait till Bloomberg tries to sell this on a national stage; he'll be exposed as the liberal elitist that he is, and will be innovated right out of the race. We're actually looking forward to watching this happen.
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
Livingston Red-Faced
Yesterday we questioned whether it made any sense to trust the judgement of London mayor Ken Livingston-on anything. Having Livingston act as the poster child for congestion pricing, given his bizarre and dangerous views on so many other things, makes little or no sense. Which is why we chastised the Times for allowing the unhinged mayor to have an Op-Ed platform.
Today, in a column in the NY Post, Amir Taheri underscores our point about the views of "Ken the Red." What Taheri emphasizes is what Nick Cohen has pointed out in his book, What's Left? How Liberals Have Lost Their Way-the manner in which left wing and supposedly progressive folks have begun to embrace Islamic fascists because of the way they challenge Western "hegemony."
Livingston has done this for years, and continues to do so today, even in the face of another terror plot against his city and country. As Taheri points out, "Worse still, Ken Livingston, London's quixotic leftist mayor, has shifted the blame from the terrorists to the British at large, who are supposedly tempted by 'Islamophobia.'" Does this in any way ring true?
Taheri again: "Even the most rabid and anti-West and pro-terror Islamic clerics are granted visas to come to the United Kingdom and spread their message of hatred ( at time, as guests of Ken Livingston and his friends)." Yet Livingston is now sanitized and properly cleansed by the NY Times to act as the spokesman for congestion pricing.
Quite frankly. we wouldn't follow the model of any city that has the poor judgement to elect Livingston as mayor-and the socialist crew over in Stockholm aren't that much better in our view. The fact that Livingston has already doubled the initial congestion tax and wants to charge SUV's around $50 bucks to enter the city only adds to our reluctance to accept his judgements on public policy. If this creep is given any more invitations to come to New York to lecture us, we should let our muddle-headed mayor know what a mistake that would be.
Today, in a column in the NY Post, Amir Taheri underscores our point about the views of "Ken the Red." What Taheri emphasizes is what Nick Cohen has pointed out in his book, What's Left? How Liberals Have Lost Their Way-the manner in which left wing and supposedly progressive folks have begun to embrace Islamic fascists because of the way they challenge Western "hegemony."
Livingston has done this for years, and continues to do so today, even in the face of another terror plot against his city and country. As Taheri points out, "Worse still, Ken Livingston, London's quixotic leftist mayor, has shifted the blame from the terrorists to the British at large, who are supposedly tempted by 'Islamophobia.'" Does this in any way ring true?
Taheri again: "Even the most rabid and anti-West and pro-terror Islamic clerics are granted visas to come to the United Kingdom and spread their message of hatred ( at time, as guests of Ken Livingston and his friends)." Yet Livingston is now sanitized and properly cleansed by the NY Times to act as the spokesman for congestion pricing.
Quite frankly. we wouldn't follow the model of any city that has the poor judgement to elect Livingston as mayor-and the socialist crew over in Stockholm aren't that much better in our view. The fact that Livingston has already doubled the initial congestion tax and wants to charge SUV's around $50 bucks to enter the city only adds to our reluctance to accept his judgements on public policy. If this creep is given any more invitations to come to New York to lecture us, we should let our muddle-headed mayor know what a mistake that would be.
Monday, July 02, 2007
Ken the Red Weighs In on Congestion
The NY Times opens up its Op-Ed today to the wisdom of "Ken the Red" Livingston, the communist mayor of London. Now we normally resist the need to resort to ad hominen attacks, but for Livingston we're happy to make an exception. To put it simply, the man has exhibited such abhorrent views on so many of the most crucial issues of the day that, in our minds, he has forfeited the right to be taken seriously on any issue; And certainly not on any issue that involves business impacts.
This is the same man who has defended the most anti-Semitic and vile Islamic clergy, literally genuflecting to their hateful philosophy. When the London bombers murdered his constituents he effectively justified such terrorism on the grounds that the terrorists were "oppressed" by the people they murdered. He then went on to basically blame, not the bombers themselves, but the Israelis who had, "done horrendous things which border on crimes against humanity in the way in which they have indiscriminately slaughtered men, woman and children on the West Bank and Gaza for decades (See Londonistan by Melanie Phillips).
Livingston has also embraced the Muslim Brotherhood-literally so. As Philips reports, "Livingston publicly embraced Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Brotherhood's spiritual leader who has not only endorsed the use of human bombs against Iraq and Israel but has denounced the 'incomparable and overt' iniquity of the Jews and called for Jews and other infidels to be killed." The fact that this vile sheikh loathes gays, women and "infidels" doesn't seem to bother Ken in the least.When Livingston was confronted for his support of this clerical fascist he accused the sheik's opponents of being part of a "Mossad plot."
Livingston' irrationality and obscene politics is not of recent vintage. At the funeral of the old Stalinist Gerry Healy, the head of the Workers Revolutionary Party in England (and a rapist to boot), Livingston praised Healy-who at the time was fronting for Saddam and was on the payroll of the Baath Party-and blamed the collapse of the WRP on M15 (sound familiar?).
Livingston is, however, supposed to be the voice of reason on congestion pricing? Quite frankly, when someone is so politically unhinged it is useful for others to exercise extreme caution in taking anything they say seriously. In fact, it would have been useful-even if out of character, for the Times to mention just how irrational Ken the Red is on so many issues-as a caution and service to its readers. But that might have been construed as "Red-Baiting," which of course is out-of-bounds even if the person in question is "Ken the Red."
This is the same man who has defended the most anti-Semitic and vile Islamic clergy, literally genuflecting to their hateful philosophy. When the London bombers murdered his constituents he effectively justified such terrorism on the grounds that the terrorists were "oppressed" by the people they murdered. He then went on to basically blame, not the bombers themselves, but the Israelis who had, "done horrendous things which border on crimes against humanity in the way in which they have indiscriminately slaughtered men, woman and children on the West Bank and Gaza for decades (See Londonistan by Melanie Phillips).
Livingston has also embraced the Muslim Brotherhood-literally so. As Philips reports, "Livingston publicly embraced Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Brotherhood's spiritual leader who has not only endorsed the use of human bombs against Iraq and Israel but has denounced the 'incomparable and overt' iniquity of the Jews and called for Jews and other infidels to be killed." The fact that this vile sheikh loathes gays, women and "infidels" doesn't seem to bother Ken in the least.When Livingston was confronted for his support of this clerical fascist he accused the sheik's opponents of being part of a "Mossad plot."
Livingston' irrationality and obscene politics is not of recent vintage. At the funeral of the old Stalinist Gerry Healy, the head of the Workers Revolutionary Party in England (and a rapist to boot), Livingston praised Healy-who at the time was fronting for Saddam and was on the payroll of the Baath Party-and blamed the collapse of the WRP on M15 (sound familiar?).
Livingston is, however, supposed to be the voice of reason on congestion pricing? Quite frankly, when someone is so politically unhinged it is useful for others to exercise extreme caution in taking anything they say seriously. In fact, it would have been useful-even if out of character, for the Times to mention just how irrational Ken the Red is on so many issues-as a caution and service to its readers. But that might have been construed as "Red-Baiting," which of course is out-of-bounds even if the person in question is "Ken the Red."
Columbia's Questionable Advisors
It now appears that the rush to certify the Columbia expansion plan had an additional rationale; besides the usual need to go full speed ahead in order to save money on construction costs. What just may have been prompting the breakneck speed approach, before any real negotiations have begun between the university and the community, is the law suit that was brought by the West Harlem Business Association (our client, Tuck-it-Away, is a member).
The law suit targeted all of the communications between AKRK, a land use consulting firm, and the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC). The reason for the suit was to challenge the legitimacy of the use of AKRF as a consultant for ESDC in the preparation of the state's requisite blight study; a mandated precursor to any condemnation proceeding.
Now it turns out that AKRF's talents are quite protean. The firm is not only doing the state's blight study, it is also representing the party that wants to condemn the West Harlem real estate-none other than Columbia the gem of the ocean. In its legal defense AKRF told the court that this apparent conflict wasn't really any problem since it had constructed a "Chinese Wall" within the company-something that, understandably so, Judge Kornreeich didn't find to be very credible.
Why is this so important? It is so because the blight study is what the state and Columbia will rely on to defend themselves against the inevitable litigation should the use of eminent domain be utilized to evict the West Harlem property owners. It is further crucial since the so-called blight will be determined for an area where Columbia itself has taken over the vast percentage of all of the extant property-and has purposefully allowed it all to deteriorate.
It is also important because of how it throws into sharp relief all of the supposed independent consulting work that has become integral to the city's land use review process. It underscores the extent to which there has never, ever, been any real independent review of environmental data submitted to the city; nor has the city ever properly reviewed any of the data proffered by those looking to develop.
ULURP is, and has always been, a political process with an environmental veneer, and it is high time that the entire charade be reformed. Perhaps the Columbia collusion will become the impetus for just such a reform.
The law suit targeted all of the communications between AKRK, a land use consulting firm, and the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC). The reason for the suit was to challenge the legitimacy of the use of AKRF as a consultant for ESDC in the preparation of the state's requisite blight study; a mandated precursor to any condemnation proceeding.
Now it turns out that AKRF's talents are quite protean. The firm is not only doing the state's blight study, it is also representing the party that wants to condemn the West Harlem real estate-none other than Columbia the gem of the ocean. In its legal defense AKRF told the court that this apparent conflict wasn't really any problem since it had constructed a "Chinese Wall" within the company-something that, understandably so, Judge Kornreeich didn't find to be very credible.
Why is this so important? It is so because the blight study is what the state and Columbia will rely on to defend themselves against the inevitable litigation should the use of eminent domain be utilized to evict the West Harlem property owners. It is further crucial since the so-called blight will be determined for an area where Columbia itself has taken over the vast percentage of all of the extant property-and has purposefully allowed it all to deteriorate.
It is also important because of how it throws into sharp relief all of the supposed independent consulting work that has become integral to the city's land use review process. It underscores the extent to which there has never, ever, been any real independent review of environmental data submitted to the city; nor has the city ever properly reviewed any of the data proffered by those looking to develop.
ULURP is, and has always been, a political process with an environmental veneer, and it is high time that the entire charade be reformed. Perhaps the Columbia collusion will become the impetus for just such a reform.
Saturday, June 30, 2007
Congestion Tax: Got You Coming and Going
The more the details of the mayor's congestion tax scheme are revealed the less appetizing the whole idea becomes. This can be seen clearly from this morning's piece in the NY Times. What the Times reveals is the fact that the new tax will not only target incoming motorists but will also be applied to folks who live in the congestion zone who want to visit their aunt in the Bronx, or shop for groceries up at Fairway on 129th Street.
As the Times points out, this aspect of the plan "has not been widely mentioned... {and}... It might seem that anyone taking a car out of the congestion zone ought to be rewarded instead of penalized, but officials disagreed" There's a good reason for the lack of candor, it runs against the advertised rationale that the plan is designed to cut traffic, "chiefly by persuading people from the other boroughs and beyond to leave their cars behind..."
This lack of candor is no accident because, as the Times indicates, "But city officials also appear aware of the political sensitivity of the plan, and are counting on support from people residing inside of the zone, who would be expected to benefit from the drop in traffic." And what happens when people are told of this feature of the plan? They are no longer knee-jerk supporters of the idea: "'I don't think it's fair,' said Jose Hernandez, 60, a parking lot attendant who lives on West 57th Street, 'I've got family uptown, and my son lives in the Bronx.'"
What else aren't we being told? All of which makes it clear that this scheme needs a full, thorough, and independent review-and not a "wham!, bam!, thank you ma'am" approach that the mayor and his minions seem to favor in all things large and small.
As the Times points out, this aspect of the plan "has not been widely mentioned... {and}... It might seem that anyone taking a car out of the congestion zone ought to be rewarded instead of penalized, but officials disagreed" There's a good reason for the lack of candor, it runs against the advertised rationale that the plan is designed to cut traffic, "chiefly by persuading people from the other boroughs and beyond to leave their cars behind..."
This lack of candor is no accident because, as the Times indicates, "But city officials also appear aware of the political sensitivity of the plan, and are counting on support from people residing inside of the zone, who would be expected to benefit from the drop in traffic." And what happens when people are told of this feature of the plan? They are no longer knee-jerk supporters of the idea: "'I don't think it's fair,' said Jose Hernandez, 60, a parking lot attendant who lives on West 57th Street, 'I've got family uptown, and my son lives in the Bronx.'"
What else aren't we being told? All of which makes it clear that this scheme needs a full, thorough, and independent review-and not a "wham!, bam!, thank you ma'am" approach that the mayor and his minions seem to favor in all things large and small.
Columbia, ESDC-AKRF'd Up
In what may become a watershed decision, Judge Shirley Werner Kornreich ruled that the Empire State Development Corporation must hand over confidential documents and correspondence to opponents of the Columbia expansion plan. As the NY Times reports this morning, the judge made her ruling "because of an appearance of collusion between the state and Columbia."
The main issue, one that we have commented on before, is the fact that the consulting firm AKRF is employed by Columbia to give the environmental impact of the university's expansion the most favorable gloss, while at the same time working for ESDC as a consultant in order to "determine" whether the area Columbia wants to seize is really "blighted." As we said previously, this is the equivalent of a take home exam that the student gets to mark herself; and it raises serious questions about the legitimacy of the entire process.
Now we have commented previously about the serious weaknesses in the city's land use review process, and in particular the worthiness of the so-called environmental consulting work that is done on behalf of developers. The good folks at the Manhattan Institute, no knee-jerk opponents of development, have cogently alerted us to the unhealthy collaboration between developers, their environmental consultants, and the review agencies that are supposed to do the proper due diligence of the data that is submitted on behalf of development projects.
The key analysis in the Institute report was the observation that no one wants to go on record "blowing the whistle" if something in the data submitted doesn't ring true. Therefore, the review process often becomes a charade and, unless the opponents have the resources to fight-like those in West Harlem-communities are never adequately informed about the real impacts of development.
The untoward situation up at Columbia, however, goes way beyond the generic inadequacy of ULURP. In this case, all pretense of fairness has been tossed out the window and the foxes haven't even bothered to dress up as chickens. As Justice Kornreich says, "'A.K.R.F, presumably, seeks to succeed in securing an outcome that its client, Columbia, would favor.'"
In some ways ESDC, Columbia and AKRF have done us all a favor and, through their blatant disregard for any semblance of pretense, clearly demonstrated the phony nature of the UURP process in this city. Now the only thing that needs to be done here is for the consultants to be recused; and for the entire ULURP process to be suspended until a clearer understanding of the interrelationships between the parties is fully revealed.
The failure of the city to do this would seem to us to imperil the project in the litigation that will almost certainly occur should the expansion be approved by the city. In any case, as Norm Siegal points out in the Times this morning the entire project reeks of collusion: "'The easiest way to put it is that you can't serve two masters...The government has the power to condemn my clients' property. But the process should be neutral and objective, and when you find out that the government has retained Columbia's consultant, it can't be neutral anymore.'"
The main issue, one that we have commented on before, is the fact that the consulting firm AKRF is employed by Columbia to give the environmental impact of the university's expansion the most favorable gloss, while at the same time working for ESDC as a consultant in order to "determine" whether the area Columbia wants to seize is really "blighted." As we said previously, this is the equivalent of a take home exam that the student gets to mark herself; and it raises serious questions about the legitimacy of the entire process.
Now we have commented previously about the serious weaknesses in the city's land use review process, and in particular the worthiness of the so-called environmental consulting work that is done on behalf of developers. The good folks at the Manhattan Institute, no knee-jerk opponents of development, have cogently alerted us to the unhealthy collaboration between developers, their environmental consultants, and the review agencies that are supposed to do the proper due diligence of the data that is submitted on behalf of development projects.
The key analysis in the Institute report was the observation that no one wants to go on record "blowing the whistle" if something in the data submitted doesn't ring true. Therefore, the review process often becomes a charade and, unless the opponents have the resources to fight-like those in West Harlem-communities are never adequately informed about the real impacts of development.
The untoward situation up at Columbia, however, goes way beyond the generic inadequacy of ULURP. In this case, all pretense of fairness has been tossed out the window and the foxes haven't even bothered to dress up as chickens. As Justice Kornreich says, "'A.K.R.F, presumably, seeks to succeed in securing an outcome that its client, Columbia, would favor.'"
In some ways ESDC, Columbia and AKRF have done us all a favor and, through their blatant disregard for any semblance of pretense, clearly demonstrated the phony nature of the UURP process in this city. Now the only thing that needs to be done here is for the consultants to be recused; and for the entire ULURP process to be suspended until a clearer understanding of the interrelationships between the parties is fully revealed.
The failure of the city to do this would seem to us to imperil the project in the litigation that will almost certainly occur should the expansion be approved by the city. In any case, as Norm Siegal points out in the Times this morning the entire project reeks of collusion: "'The easiest way to put it is that you can't serve two masters...The government has the power to condemn my clients' property. But the process should be neutral and objective, and when you find out that the government has retained Columbia's consultant, it can't be neutral anymore.'"
Friday, June 29, 2007
Everyone, Even the Mayor, Needs a Good Editor
Crain's In$ider is reporting today that the Assembly is looking to modify the mayor's congestion tax plan. As the newsletter says, "State assembly members are talking about trying to force changes to Mayor Mike Bloomberg's congestion pricing plan before giving it their approval."
Among the changes supposedly in the works are; (1) An alteration and narrowing of the zone; (2) A reduction of the hours that the tax would be applied; and, (3) A modification of the current allowance that allows New Jersey drivers to deduct their congestion tax from the tolls they pay crossing the Hudson.
Crain's observes that all of these potential changes could lead to a showdown with the mayor, who said Wednesday that the legislature shouldn't be "micromanaging" the city's plan-another example of the arrogance emanating out of city hall. The fact is that the plan is deeply flawed and needs to be altered, something that would have been done had the mayor brought the whole idea to the legislature early on. That would, however, been out of character for the "my way or the highway mayor."
So instead, the mayor and Deputy Dan exhibit their lack of political acumen and any chance of success has been diminished because of it. Our feeling in all of this was that the mayor was the best friend that opponents of his plan could hope to have. It remains to be determined if he can use his muscle to overcome his lack of skills in the legislative process.
Among the changes supposedly in the works are; (1) An alteration and narrowing of the zone; (2) A reduction of the hours that the tax would be applied; and, (3) A modification of the current allowance that allows New Jersey drivers to deduct their congestion tax from the tolls they pay crossing the Hudson.
Crain's observes that all of these potential changes could lead to a showdown with the mayor, who said Wednesday that the legislature shouldn't be "micromanaging" the city's plan-another example of the arrogance emanating out of city hall. The fact is that the plan is deeply flawed and needs to be altered, something that would have been done had the mayor brought the whole idea to the legislature early on. That would, however, been out of character for the "my way or the highway mayor."
So instead, the mayor and Deputy Dan exhibit their lack of political acumen and any chance of success has been diminished because of it. Our feeling in all of this was that the mayor was the best friend that opponents of his plan could hope to have. It remains to be determined if he can use his muscle to overcome his lack of skills in the legislative process.
Clueless
Mayor Mike has reverted to his old arrogance. You might remember that when bodegas had protested the 1800% cigarette tax hike- a tax that costs them $250 million a year in lost revenue, Bloomberg described their worries as simply, "a minor economic issue."
Now, as the NY Post and the NY Daily News both are reporting, the mayor is back to his old patrician tricks in dismissing New Yorker' concerns with subway overcrowding as "a minor inconvenience." As one rider told the Post, the mayor must be "commuting from another planet." The News simply asks, "Hey Mike Bloomberg, what train are you riding?"
So, as we have come to expect, the mayor is clueless when it comes to the plight of the average New Yorker. But, as we see this morning, the mayor is not alone. The NY Daily News joins with the clueless mayor in its editorial on subway overcrowding-coming to exactly the wrong conclusions from TA president Roberts' report on the overcapacity in many of the city's most utilized lines.
Instead of arguing that the severe overcrowding should merit a delay in the implementation of a congestion tax that would add an additional 100,000 new riders to the system, the News says that the Roberts report, "...explains why the Legislature must enact congestion pricing." Really? The city does need a financial plan to devise the appropriate methods for the construction of the new infrastructure that the system needs. No one has bothered to evaluate just why the mayor's plan is the best one to accomplish these needed goals.
Instead, the mayor's big on trying to bogart everyone with his, "I'm rich and I know better mentality." All of this putative platform building for a run for national office will, however, flounder once people realize that Bloomberg's elitist worldview is out-of-touch with their real world concerns.
Now, as the NY Post and the NY Daily News both are reporting, the mayor is back to his old patrician tricks in dismissing New Yorker' concerns with subway overcrowding as "a minor inconvenience." As one rider told the Post, the mayor must be "commuting from another planet." The News simply asks, "Hey Mike Bloomberg, what train are you riding?"
So, as we have come to expect, the mayor is clueless when it comes to the plight of the average New Yorker. But, as we see this morning, the mayor is not alone. The NY Daily News joins with the clueless mayor in its editorial on subway overcrowding-coming to exactly the wrong conclusions from TA president Roberts' report on the overcapacity in many of the city's most utilized lines.
Instead of arguing that the severe overcrowding should merit a delay in the implementation of a congestion tax that would add an additional 100,000 new riders to the system, the News says that the Roberts report, "...explains why the Legislature must enact congestion pricing." Really? The city does need a financial plan to devise the appropriate methods for the construction of the new infrastructure that the system needs. No one has bothered to evaluate just why the mayor's plan is the best one to accomplish these needed goals.
Instead, the mayor's big on trying to bogart everyone with his, "I'm rich and I know better mentality." All of this putative platform building for a run for national office will, however, flounder once people realize that Bloomberg's elitist worldview is out-of-touch with their real world concerns.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Philosophical Exposure on Congestion Tax
As we have been saying all along, the underlying philosophy of the congestion taxers is to continue to raise the cost of living and doing business in this city-all in the name of what is misconceived as good public policy. Those who entertain this point of view, and have done so for years before Kermit the Mayor came on board, are congenitally anti-auto-and by extension have no concern for the impacts that their schemes will have on the businesses of the city.
This underlying rationale is exposed in today's NY Sun in an article that looks at the possibility of a "free" subway system. The fantasy in question, is the brainchild of our old buddy George Haikalis, a man we last encountered in the AirTrain fight with the Port Authority. What Haikalis envisions, and the concept is contained in a report of his Institute for Rational Mobility, is a $16 toll on all bridges and tunnels.
Which is exactly where we are heading with the mayor's plan because, just like the case of the London tax, it is only a matter of time before the insatiable appetite of the MTA need to be re-fed. What's amusing is the response of Gene Russianoff, who described the idea as a "platonic ideal." Which reminds us of the late philosopher Karl Popper who rightly saw in Platonism the seeds of totalitarianism.
None of these folks give a rat ass about how any of this will impact the city's economy. It is amusing, in a perverse sort of way, however, to see the business scions in league with this philosophy. We really don't see this as a meeting of the minds, but rather as symptomatic of the toady effect that the mayor has on these neutered folks-When the mayor says jump, they simply say, "How High?"
This underlying rationale is exposed in today's NY Sun in an article that looks at the possibility of a "free" subway system. The fantasy in question, is the brainchild of our old buddy George Haikalis, a man we last encountered in the AirTrain fight with the Port Authority. What Haikalis envisions, and the concept is contained in a report of his Institute for Rational Mobility, is a $16 toll on all bridges and tunnels.
Which is exactly where we are heading with the mayor's plan because, just like the case of the London tax, it is only a matter of time before the insatiable appetite of the MTA need to be re-fed. What's amusing is the response of Gene Russianoff, who described the idea as a "platonic ideal." Which reminds us of the late philosopher Karl Popper who rightly saw in Platonism the seeds of totalitarianism.
None of these folks give a rat ass about how any of this will impact the city's economy. It is amusing, in a perverse sort of way, however, to see the business scions in league with this philosophy. We really don't see this as a meeting of the minds, but rather as symptomatic of the toady effect that the mayor has on these neutered folks-When the mayor says jump, they simply say, "How High?"
Congestion Truckulence
There's an interesting piece in this week's Queens Courier on the impact that the mayor's congestion tax would have on the city's distribution businesses. This is a theme that we have been stressing but it bears the re-emphasis.
In the Courier story the paper gets a response to the mayor's plan from the Fresh Direct company, the firm that delivers groceries into many Manhattan neighborhoods. What the FD folks underscored was that the $21 dollar truck fee would have almost zero impact on congestion: "Ultimately, charges for trucks delivering into Manhattan, whether to residential homes or to retail locations, will be shouldered by city residents...the only effect on fees for commercial vehicles will be higher prices for New Yorkers."
Now Fresh Direct is a well financed company with relatively deep pockets. There are, however, thousands of smaller distributors and contractors who will be burdened if not crippled by this new tax; another reason why the whole plan needs a cost-benefit analysis.
In the Courier story the paper gets a response to the mayor's plan from the Fresh Direct company, the firm that delivers groceries into many Manhattan neighborhoods. What the FD folks underscored was that the $21 dollar truck fee would have almost zero impact on congestion: "Ultimately, charges for trucks delivering into Manhattan, whether to residential homes or to retail locations, will be shouldered by city residents...the only effect on fees for commercial vehicles will be higher prices for New Yorkers."
Now Fresh Direct is a well financed company with relatively deep pockets. There are, however, thousands of smaller distributors and contractors who will be burdened if not crippled by this new tax; another reason why the whole plan needs a cost-benefit analysis.
Subway Crowding Dismissed
In what has become expected from the "tin eared" mayor, Mike Bloomberg ridiculed the idea that the subways, already at capacity or above on many of its key lines, couldn't accommodate the extra 100,000 or so additional riders that might get diverted if his congestion tax were implemented. As the NY Post reports this morning, the faux plebe mayor told the less fortunate gathered for a Crain's breakfast; "So you stand next to people. Get real. This is New York. What's wrong with that?"
But as Councilman David Weprin told the NY Daily News, "He doesn't take it from Queens...The F Train on 179th Street is so overcrowded from Queens into Manhattan-it's ridiculous." But the clueless chief executive continues to do his best Chico Marx imitation: "Who are you going to believe, me or you own lying eyes?" The mayor kept questioning where the capacity figures came from, and at the press conference that opponents held outside of city hall yesterday Committee spokesperson Walter McCaffrey told reporters, "You know those are the statistics of the MTA..."
But as Councilman David Weprin told the NY Daily News, "He doesn't take it from Queens...The F Train on 179th Street is so overcrowded from Queens into Manhattan-it's ridiculous." But the clueless chief executive continues to do his best Chico Marx imitation: "Who are you going to believe, me or you own lying eyes?" The mayor kept questioning where the capacity figures came from, and at the press conference that opponents held outside of city hall yesterday Committee spokesperson Walter McCaffrey told reporters, "You know those are the statistics of the MTA..."
Which brings us to the red herring that proponents of the congestion plan have begun to emphasize more in their desperation to get more of the tax payers money-the fare increase. Key advocate for this point of view is the Straphangers Gener Russianoff. As he told Metro, the need to keep the fare in line made the mayor's congestion plan a "no brainer."
It always is for the tax and spend crowd, but this congestion scheme is desperately in need of a good accountant. There have been so many claims for the congestion plan that it would be useful for some legislative review process to put all of the numbers-the claims and counter-claims-to the test. Who will pay the most, and who will be cut a break because their tolls will defray the congestion fee? If the money is used to keep the fare down, how much will actually be left to build more infrastructure? And finally, if it makes sense to tax more for these purposes, then is it fair for middle class commuters to shoulder the greater share of the responsibility?
One thing's for sure. The mayor, just judging on his comments about subway crowding, is no reliable source of information, nor can he be considered an honest broker for this deal. As the NY Post editorializes this morning, the mayor has once again compromised his credibility: "We've tentatively backed that plan. But let's face it: it's no quick or surefire cure to Gotham's transit ills. New Yorkers need to know that motorists who give up their cars will have a civilized alternative to get in and out of Manhattan."
And who can believe anything that a dysfunctional MTA has to say, Just one day after saying that. "There's no room at the inn," TA head Roberts-finally getting the right talking points-"backpeddled-saying that 100,000 ex-motorists would not add significantly to transit ridership." As the Post says, the mayor's "let-them-eat-MetroCards" attitude will get him fried on the third rail; just where his scheme and a unreliable MTA belongs.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Pressing Congestion
The Committee for a Congestion Tax-Free NYC will be holding a press conference today at 11:00 AM on the steps of City Hall. Joining the group, made up of scores of local civic and small business groups, will be a number of city and state law makers who are concerned about the impact that a congestion tax would have on middle class commuters from Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx-as well as small distributors and contractors who make a living within the CBD.
The law makers, led by State Senator Carl Kruger and Assemblyman Rory Lancman-along with council members Melinda Katz, David Weprin, Vinnie Gentile, Mike Nelson and Tony Avella-are deeply concerned, and press reports confirm these fears, that the current transit infrastructure is unable to handle the additional 90,000 or so riders who will be forced to shift to the trains and buses should the tax be adopted.
In addition, law makers are worried that the full consequences of the plan-its costs as well as its benefits-have not been adequately evaluated since the proposal has not undergone any independent review. Also, proponents of the plan such as the Straphangers Gene Russianoff are arguing that the money generated will be essential for keeping the fare at the current $2.
There is, however, only a finite amount of money here, and with the mayor championing expansion of services and Russianoff promoting the fare subsidy, it's hard to see how the tax could accomplish both tasks. In the end it is simply a tax, and any expanded transit service would only be available for the grandchildren of the current riders.
The law makers, led by State Senator Carl Kruger and Assemblyman Rory Lancman-along with council members Melinda Katz, David Weprin, Vinnie Gentile, Mike Nelson and Tony Avella-are deeply concerned, and press reports confirm these fears, that the current transit infrastructure is unable to handle the additional 90,000 or so riders who will be forced to shift to the trains and buses should the tax be adopted.
In addition, law makers are worried that the full consequences of the plan-its costs as well as its benefits-have not been adequately evaluated since the proposal has not undergone any independent review. Also, proponents of the plan such as the Straphangers Gene Russianoff are arguing that the money generated will be essential for keeping the fare at the current $2.
There is, however, only a finite amount of money here, and with the mayor championing expansion of services and Russianoff promoting the fare subsidy, it's hard to see how the tax could accomplish both tasks. In the end it is simply a tax, and any expanded transit service would only be available for the grandchildren of the current riders.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Congestion Plan Getting IRTible
Well, well. It now appears that the expected overload that will occur on the city's subways should the mayor's congestion plan go into effect, will cause a burden that the current system will not be able to handle. Don't take our word for this, or put it with the normal doom and gloom that critics are wont to employ, just ask the head of the Transit Authority.
As the NY Times is reporting this morning, Howard Roberts the TA head, is telling one and all that his system is overloaded and will be so for the foreseeable future: "' From my point of view this is scary...This is scary in the sense that right now, on a lot of these lines, we're several years and a big construction project away from being able to provide what I consider adequate service. We're constrained.'"
As Roberts went on to say, "'There's no room at the inn.'" Clearly, the cart of congestion pricing has been placed before the horse of transit improvement, and has many riders tell us the system needs more trains. To make the logical leap from that assumption to the support of the $600 million a year congestion tax makes little sense. Yet, this is precisely what the mayor and his minions continue to do-yesterday down in Washington making a show for the federal dollars that no one knows will ever be forthcoming.
The mass transit overcrowding in New York has reached critical proportions. Roberts tells the NY Daily News that, "'To the extent that people are diverted to the subway system and they want to ride the nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and E (lines), it's bad news.'" Now the mayor's spokesman says that the city agrees with this assessment and that is why it is promoting its tax scheme.
If that's the case then we need to ask whether it makes sense to impose an expensive, complicated-and unfair-tax system in order to improve the city's mass transit infrastructure? And, do we need to impose the tax years before riders will be able to see any relief? Certainly, as the NY Sun reports this morning, we shouldn't be seeing the mayor's folks putting contracts out to bid for a plan that hasn't been approved.
All of which means that the mayor's rush to enact this plan is unwise and should be rejected. This entire process has been characterized by an almost total suspension of disbelief among editorial writers and so-called good government groups. The mayor has harnessed the anti-motorist sentiment of much of the environmental community and, in the dishonest name of clean air, looks to whack middle class and working class New Yorkers with yet another tax on living in the city.
As the NY Times is reporting this morning, Howard Roberts the TA head, is telling one and all that his system is overloaded and will be so for the foreseeable future: "' From my point of view this is scary...This is scary in the sense that right now, on a lot of these lines, we're several years and a big construction project away from being able to provide what I consider adequate service. We're constrained.'"
As Roberts went on to say, "'There's no room at the inn.'" Clearly, the cart of congestion pricing has been placed before the horse of transit improvement, and has many riders tell us the system needs more trains. To make the logical leap from that assumption to the support of the $600 million a year congestion tax makes little sense. Yet, this is precisely what the mayor and his minions continue to do-yesterday down in Washington making a show for the federal dollars that no one knows will ever be forthcoming.
The mass transit overcrowding in New York has reached critical proportions. Roberts tells the NY Daily News that, "'To the extent that people are diverted to the subway system and they want to ride the nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and E (lines), it's bad news.'" Now the mayor's spokesman says that the city agrees with this assessment and that is why it is promoting its tax scheme.
If that's the case then we need to ask whether it makes sense to impose an expensive, complicated-and unfair-tax system in order to improve the city's mass transit infrastructure? And, do we need to impose the tax years before riders will be able to see any relief? Certainly, as the NY Sun reports this morning, we shouldn't be seeing the mayor's folks putting contracts out to bid for a plan that hasn't been approved.
All of which means that the mayor's rush to enact this plan is unwise and should be rejected. This entire process has been characterized by an almost total suspension of disbelief among editorial writers and so-called good government groups. The mayor has harnessed the anti-motorist sentiment of much of the environmental community and, in the dishonest name of clean air, looks to whack middle class and working class New Yorkers with yet another tax on living in the city.
Monday, June 25, 2007
Columbia's Wreckage
In today's NY Post the paper reports on the ongoing battle waged by Columbia against its neighbors as it seeks to expand its campus into West Harlem. In today's story the focus is on a small auto mechanic who has been moved by the university and is complaining because he sees the handwriting on the wall: there will be no place for minority businesses when and if the university expands westward.
The Post story also reports on the strong comments on eminent domain from CB#9 chair Reyes-Montblanc. He tells the paper that, "'They won't get one square inch under eminent domain...If the area seems distressed and unoccupied, it's because it belongs to Columbia. They own it and they emptied it out.'"
The ED situation is complicated by the fact that the firm doing the "blight" study for the state, AKRF, is also retained by the university for its environmental review-a conflict of interest that has been brought to the attention of the courts and awaits a ruling shortly. Reyes-Montblanc also chastised the university for its proposed eviction of 132 residential units on the west side of Broadway-something that the university said they have an "unequivocal commitment" to resolving."
There ism, however, nothing unequivocal in the Columbia plan except the university's unbridled pursuit of its own self-interest. If that weren't so then Columbia would be announcing plans foe hundreds of new units of affordable housing for a community that is desperate to stave off further gentrification. Unfortunately, that's a commitment that the university doesn't have the integrity to make.
The Post story also reports on the strong comments on eminent domain from CB#9 chair Reyes-Montblanc. He tells the paper that, "'They won't get one square inch under eminent domain...If the area seems distressed and unoccupied, it's because it belongs to Columbia. They own it and they emptied it out.'"
The ED situation is complicated by the fact that the firm doing the "blight" study for the state, AKRF, is also retained by the university for its environmental review-a conflict of interest that has been brought to the attention of the courts and awaits a ruling shortly. Reyes-Montblanc also chastised the university for its proposed eviction of 132 residential units on the west side of Broadway-something that the university said they have an "unequivocal commitment" to resolving."
There ism, however, nothing unequivocal in the Columbia plan except the university's unbridled pursuit of its own self-interest. If that weren't so then Columbia would be announcing plans foe hundreds of new units of affordable housing for a community that is desperate to stave off further gentrification. Unfortunately, that's a commitment that the university doesn't have the integrity to make.
Behind the Times
The NY Times editorial board continues to misconstrue issues, as they also continue in exhibiting a gross disrespect for the tax paying citizens of the city (while simultaneously enjoying lavish tax breaks for the new Times headquarters). The editorial today on congestion pricing is a case in point. It urges law makers to hurry back to Albany next month and approve the mayor's plan, or else risk losing millions in federal aid.
This, as we have pointed out, is simply not true. There not only is no deadline, there is likely no federal money either: it is all a chimera conjured up by a starry eyed mayor who has miraculously turned green before our very eyes. The Times compounds its errors by alleging that approval of the mayor's plan would prevent the transit fare from increasing, "maybe as much as 50 percent." Maybe the Times will next tell us that the congestion tax scheme will be a cure for ED as well.
Fortunately, not every one listens to the salons at the Times. In today's NY Sun, Councilman David Weprin lashes out at the mayor's plan, and underscores the hypocritical use of poor children and asthma as a selling point: "What I find equally disingenuous about the proposal is the argument that congestion pricing would be good for the environment. In fact, it does nothing to address the prevalence of background pollutants found with greater frequency in areas such as Long Island City, East Harlem, Bed-Stuy, the South Bronx, and Jamaica."
The Post's Fred Dicker puts this story into the proper perspective when he points out that Governor Spitzer, failing to exercise proper due diligence over the mayor's plan, "has turned his administration into an extension of city hall" (something that the Times has been doing for the past five years). All of which makes making a deal harder to envision next month.
This, as we have pointed out, is simply not true. There not only is no deadline, there is likely no federal money either: it is all a chimera conjured up by a starry eyed mayor who has miraculously turned green before our very eyes. The Times compounds its errors by alleging that approval of the mayor's plan would prevent the transit fare from increasing, "maybe as much as 50 percent." Maybe the Times will next tell us that the congestion tax scheme will be a cure for ED as well.
Fortunately, not every one listens to the salons at the Times. In today's NY Sun, Councilman David Weprin lashes out at the mayor's plan, and underscores the hypocritical use of poor children and asthma as a selling point: "What I find equally disingenuous about the proposal is the argument that congestion pricing would be good for the environment. In fact, it does nothing to address the prevalence of background pollutants found with greater frequency in areas such as Long Island City, East Harlem, Bed-Stuy, the South Bronx, and Jamaica."
The Post's Fred Dicker puts this story into the proper perspective when he points out that Governor Spitzer, failing to exercise proper due diligence over the mayor's plan, "has turned his administration into an extension of city hall" (something that the Times has been doing for the past five years). All of which makes making a deal harder to envision next month.
Is Wal-Mart Kosher?
In today's NY Times, the paper has a front page story in the Metro Section that focuses in on the growing opposition to Wal-Mart in the Orthodox Jewish community of Monsey. As the story points out, the Alliance has been "the small business advocacy group...that has helped organize Monsey's anti-Wal-Mart movement..." And two years since the giant retailer has unveiled its plan, "opposition persists."
What the Times story highlights is the fact that the normal reasons for opposing the Walmonster are also present in the Monsey situation-traffic, crime, harm to small business, and anti-labor policies. What makes the Monsey situation somewhat unique is the way these issues are filtered through a religious prism.
Monsey's religious residents are concerned that the giant store will undermine their community's quality of life-a walk-to-shop environment that is characterized by strong religious sentiments. As Yossi Weinberger told the Times, "The reason a lot of us came to Monsey is because we wanted to raise our families ia a safe place, away from the influences of the outside world..."
The Times also points out that a single elderly resident (our beloved Mrs. Marshansky), moved by the threat of Wal-Mart, gathered a thousand petitions against the store in only four days; "Around the same time, religious school administrators distributed fliers to students and their parents under the headline 'Be Aware.'" The paper goes on to point out that articles and advertisements against Wal-Mart have been running in the local Jewish press.
It is also important to point out that one of the Alliance's staunchest allies, Joseph Kizelnick, is featured on the front picture and represents the vibrant local retail economy that will be threatened with extinction should Wal-Mart's effort to build a super center in Monsey be successful. As Kizelnick told the Times, "...if we get together as a group, as a community, we can win this battle."
And it is beginning to look like it just might be possible to do just that. The traffic analysis of the Alliance's Brian Ketcham, work that predicts that the store would add 16,000 additional vehicles on the average weekday, is beginning to sink in with the town of Ramapo. Supervisor St. Lawrence's comments to the Times illustrate this point: "My concern is with traffic, and for a regional store like the one being proposed, we need a regional solution, and that's not something you can solve with a few stoplights."
This is as close as St. Lawrence has come to indicate that the town may be moving to vote down the proposed super center. The voting strength of the Orthodox community is noted: "The community is considered a powerful voting bloc, so in an election year, officials have been careful not to alienate its members" (St. Lawrence is up for re-election this year).
It should be noted, however, that the African-American mayor of Spring Valley also opposes Wal-Mart, as does the Working Families Party and the locals of the UFCW. This is a large coalition against the Walmonster and we're hopeful that the electeds of the Town of Ramapo will recognize this and do the right thing: send Wal-Mart packing.
What the Times story highlights is the fact that the normal reasons for opposing the Walmonster are also present in the Monsey situation-traffic, crime, harm to small business, and anti-labor policies. What makes the Monsey situation somewhat unique is the way these issues are filtered through a religious prism.
Monsey's religious residents are concerned that the giant store will undermine their community's quality of life-a walk-to-shop environment that is characterized by strong religious sentiments. As Yossi Weinberger told the Times, "The reason a lot of us came to Monsey is because we wanted to raise our families ia a safe place, away from the influences of the outside world..."
The Times also points out that a single elderly resident (our beloved Mrs. Marshansky), moved by the threat of Wal-Mart, gathered a thousand petitions against the store in only four days; "Around the same time, religious school administrators distributed fliers to students and their parents under the headline 'Be Aware.'" The paper goes on to point out that articles and advertisements against Wal-Mart have been running in the local Jewish press.
It is also important to point out that one of the Alliance's staunchest allies, Joseph Kizelnick, is featured on the front picture and represents the vibrant local retail economy that will be threatened with extinction should Wal-Mart's effort to build a super center in Monsey be successful. As Kizelnick told the Times, "...if we get together as a group, as a community, we can win this battle."
And it is beginning to look like it just might be possible to do just that. The traffic analysis of the Alliance's Brian Ketcham, work that predicts that the store would add 16,000 additional vehicles on the average weekday, is beginning to sink in with the town of Ramapo. Supervisor St. Lawrence's comments to the Times illustrate this point: "My concern is with traffic, and for a regional store like the one being proposed, we need a regional solution, and that's not something you can solve with a few stoplights."
This is as close as St. Lawrence has come to indicate that the town may be moving to vote down the proposed super center. The voting strength of the Orthodox community is noted: "The community is considered a powerful voting bloc, so in an election year, officials have been careful not to alienate its members" (St. Lawrence is up for re-election this year).
It should be noted, however, that the African-American mayor of Spring Valley also opposes Wal-Mart, as does the Working Families Party and the locals of the UFCW. This is a large coalition against the Walmonster and we're hopeful that the electeds of the Town of Ramapo will recognize this and do the right thing: send Wal-Mart packing.
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Need to Fight Fat
The NY Post has a disturbing story this morning on the obesity epidemic that threatens NYC children. The threat is particularly acute in the Bronx where, "25 percent of Bronx elementary school students are considered obese and more than 42 percent are overweight." This translates into about half of all of the children in the borough being super sized by a combination of unhealthy eating and the lack of exercise.
Clearly, something needs to be done here: "As BP Carrion says, "It doesn't take a health expert to realize that unless we get these kids exercising and on the right nutritional track now, we are going to be dealing with this issue 20 years from now when they are obese adults." And one elected official is doing just that. As we have been commenting all along, Joel Rivera, in collaboration with Dr. Mehmet Oz's Health Corps, is trying to reverse this frightening trend.
Rivera's obesity initiative received over three million dollars from the council budget, with the Health Corps getting over two million of the appropriation. The purpose of the HC is to create a sea change in health attitudes among the city's young people. The program targets high school kids because its goal is to create health activists who will become advocates for change in their communities.
In this way, the HC can become an important catalyst for school-based as well as community-based health initiatives. Often these other health programs are missing the kind of activist mindset that will energize participation at the local level. This hearts and minds side of the equation is the necessary complement to larger policy initiatives. We are happy to be part of this effort.
Clearly, something needs to be done here: "As BP Carrion says, "It doesn't take a health expert to realize that unless we get these kids exercising and on the right nutritional track now, we are going to be dealing with this issue 20 years from now when they are obese adults." And one elected official is doing just that. As we have been commenting all along, Joel Rivera, in collaboration with Dr. Mehmet Oz's Health Corps, is trying to reverse this frightening trend.
Rivera's obesity initiative received over three million dollars from the council budget, with the Health Corps getting over two million of the appropriation. The purpose of the HC is to create a sea change in health attitudes among the city's young people. The program targets high school kids because its goal is to create health activists who will become advocates for change in their communities.
In this way, the HC can become an important catalyst for school-based as well as community-based health initiatives. Often these other health programs are missing the kind of activist mindset that will energize participation at the local level. This hearts and minds side of the equation is the necessary complement to larger policy initiatives. We are happy to be part of this effort.
The High Cost of Congestion
Brian Kates has an interesting piece in this morning's NY Daily News on the lavish support that the mayor's plan is getting from multiple sources. Proponents of the congestion tax argue that the plan will be a financial boon for restaurants, construction, taxi drivers and ferries; "And many people-including lobbyists, public relations gurus and lawyers-are already walking away with piles of cash."
Still, it is clear that the ultimate bill for the lobbying effort in support of the proposed tax scheme will run into the millions of dollars-outspending opponents by better than 15-1. The NYC Partnership, "has spent $1 million to research and promote the plan," while the Metropolitan Taxi Board has been spending $10,000 a month for the past two years for lobbying fees in support of congestion pricing. Add to this, Pat Lynch's $15,000/month from the Environmental Defense Fund and $300,000 spent by traditional outsiders like Transportation Alternatives, and we have the most unusual array of political bedfellows shilling for the congestion tax.
But, as the chart in the News shows (not seen in the electronic edition), the clear losers if this plan were to go into effect would be the middle class commuters from the outer boroughs who will be paying the full congestion tax freight, while their well-heeled fellow commuters from the suburbs will be getting the toll-based discount. In addition, as the chart points out, small contractors and distributors who must come into the CBD to do business will be taxed unfairly-since the new toll will not keep their trucks from the roads they need to travel in order to simply stay in business.
But Kates misses the even larger "riches" that the mayor's plan is generating. As we have pointed out already, the mayor is running a veritable smorgasbord of municipal goodies for those electeds who join with him in support of the plan-and many of these folks represent districts whose residents are strongly opposed to the new tax. If and when this pork barrel auction is exposed, there will be a lot of politicians with a little more than just egg on their faces.
Still, it is clear that the ultimate bill for the lobbying effort in support of the proposed tax scheme will run into the millions of dollars-outspending opponents by better than 15-1. The NYC Partnership, "has spent $1 million to research and promote the plan," while the Metropolitan Taxi Board has been spending $10,000 a month for the past two years for lobbying fees in support of congestion pricing. Add to this, Pat Lynch's $15,000/month from the Environmental Defense Fund and $300,000 spent by traditional outsiders like Transportation Alternatives, and we have the most unusual array of political bedfellows shilling for the congestion tax.
But, as the chart in the News shows (not seen in the electronic edition), the clear losers if this plan were to go into effect would be the middle class commuters from the outer boroughs who will be paying the full congestion tax freight, while their well-heeled fellow commuters from the suburbs will be getting the toll-based discount. In addition, as the chart points out, small contractors and distributors who must come into the CBD to do business will be taxed unfairly-since the new toll will not keep their trucks from the roads they need to travel in order to simply stay in business.
But Kates misses the even larger "riches" that the mayor's plan is generating. As we have pointed out already, the mayor is running a veritable smorgasbord of municipal goodies for those electeds who join with him in support of the plan-and many of these folks represent districts whose residents are strongly opposed to the new tax. If and when this pork barrel auction is exposed, there will be a lot of politicians with a little more than just egg on their faces.
Saturday, June 23, 2007
Community Rallies Against Columbia
With the certification of the Columbia expansion plan accomplished, the next battle venue will be at the local community board. It will be at CB#9 where the university can expect a fierce opposition from a community that, feeling disenfranchised from the start, is furious over the summer certification of the Columbia land use plan.
Some of this emotion can be evinced in the recent article in Indymedia that highlights the community's sense that it is being railroaded. Reporting on the recent protest in front of City Planning, the paper cites community protester Tom Klappner; "We'll just stand here until you arrest us." The larger group began chanting, "127th Street-Not for sale. 128th Street-Not for sale."
All of the vitriol stems from the arrogance of a supposedly progressive institution using their political muscle to bogart legitimate community interests. The summer certification simply underscored what the community knew all along: Columbia's self-interest is the ultimate bottom line; and the concern that its professoriat shows for the less fortunate is purely a cover for the less savory reality that it serves to hide.
This is the kind of blatant hypocrisy that an English author once referred to when he called such progressive thinkers "herbivores."
In short, for the herbivores, or gentle ruminants, who look out from the lush pastures which are there natural station in life with eyes full of sorrow for less fortunate creatures, guiltily conscious of their advantages, though not usually ceasing to eat the grass.
Some of this emotion can be evinced in the recent article in Indymedia that highlights the community's sense that it is being railroaded. Reporting on the recent protest in front of City Planning, the paper cites community protester Tom Klappner; "We'll just stand here until you arrest us." The larger group began chanting, "127th Street-Not for sale. 128th Street-Not for sale."
All of the vitriol stems from the arrogance of a supposedly progressive institution using their political muscle to bogart legitimate community interests. The summer certification simply underscored what the community knew all along: Columbia's self-interest is the ultimate bottom line; and the concern that its professoriat shows for the less fortunate is purely a cover for the less savory reality that it serves to hide.
This is the kind of blatant hypocrisy that an English author once referred to when he called such progressive thinkers "herbivores."
In short, for the herbivores, or gentle ruminants, who look out from the lush pastures which are there natural station in life with eyes full of sorrow for less fortunate creatures, guiltily conscious of their advantages, though not usually ceasing to eat the grass.
Congestion Contention Unresolved
As Newsday is reporting today, with the close of the current legislative session, it remains unclear just where the mayor's proposal to tax motorists going into the CBD is going. Speaking on his radio show yesterday, Blomberg "remained optimistic," yet all that we are hearing from Speaker Silver seems to indicate that his skepticism about the mayor's plan remains unabated.
In particular, as Silver told the Daily News, he has "lingering questions about the plan, including the disproportionate impact it would have on drivers entering Manhattan from Brooklyn and other boroughs." Shelly pointed out that it is precisely those less affluent borough residents who would be paying the full $8 dollar a day tax; while the more well-off commuters coming in from, let's say, New Jersey, would have the tax deducted from their daily toll.
In talking with a number of city council members who remain opposed to the mayor's plan we're hearing two discordant themes. In the first place, there are a number of law makers who have seen the mayoral push for a congestion tax as an opportunity to mimic Monty Hall in "Let's Make a Deal." As some members have said, the willingness of the mayor to hold a public auction and the number of eager council participants means that there is less of a clamor for proper legislative oversight-a persistent theme with this council.
The lack of council oversight was raised in a conversation with Brooklyn council member Vinnie Gentile. The council member asked us why some restaurant owner needed to go through an entire environmental review if he wanted to put a couple of extra tables out in front of his eatery; yet somehow a vast mayoral taxing and driving scheme, ostensibly aimed at creating a cleaner environment, needed no EIS or council oversight. Not even a home rule message?
Which brings us back to the possible return of the legislature in mid-July. If the serious questions about the disparate impacts and over all environmental effectiveness of the mayor's plan have not been properly addressed-not to mention the problematic nature of the availability of federal funds-than there is no reason to move this proposal forward; certainly not with the undue hast that the mayor has been urging.
In particular, as Silver told the Daily News, he has "lingering questions about the plan, including the disproportionate impact it would have on drivers entering Manhattan from Brooklyn and other boroughs." Shelly pointed out that it is precisely those less affluent borough residents who would be paying the full $8 dollar a day tax; while the more well-off commuters coming in from, let's say, New Jersey, would have the tax deducted from their daily toll.
In talking with a number of city council members who remain opposed to the mayor's plan we're hearing two discordant themes. In the first place, there are a number of law makers who have seen the mayoral push for a congestion tax as an opportunity to mimic Monty Hall in "Let's Make a Deal." As some members have said, the willingness of the mayor to hold a public auction and the number of eager council participants means that there is less of a clamor for proper legislative oversight-a persistent theme with this council.
The lack of council oversight was raised in a conversation with Brooklyn council member Vinnie Gentile. The council member asked us why some restaurant owner needed to go through an entire environmental review if he wanted to put a couple of extra tables out in front of his eatery; yet somehow a vast mayoral taxing and driving scheme, ostensibly aimed at creating a cleaner environment, needed no EIS or council oversight. Not even a home rule message?
Which brings us back to the possible return of the legislature in mid-July. If the serious questions about the disparate impacts and over all environmental effectiveness of the mayor's plan have not been properly addressed-not to mention the problematic nature of the availability of federal funds-than there is no reason to move this proposal forward; certainly not with the undue hast that the mayor has been urging.
Friday, June 22, 2007
Congestive Traffic Failure-II
Taking a page out of our original post on the topic, the NY Post headlined today-"Congestive Failure-Shelly Slams Mike," signally the breakdown of negotiations on the mayor's ambitious plan to tax motorists driving below 86Th Street in Manhattan. In the Post article Silver harshly lashed out at the mayor's efforts, chiding him for "trying to ram the plan through while ignoring anybody else's view."
Silver went on to say that the mayor "insists he is the city," and never properly vetted the plan by taking it to the City Council for review. In addition, Shelly denied to the Post that he had ever signed off on the governor's proposal to set up a congestion commission to devise and implement the congestion pricing scheme; "'I did not agree to that,' Silver said."
In spite of yesterday's failure, Governor Spitzer vowed to keep pressing for a mid-July deal in order to "make New York eligible" for $500 million in federal transportation money. Billy Hammond reports that "all sides are holding out hope" that a deal can be reached. Yet, it appears to us that this likelihood has been made dimmer by the mayor's dramatic party switching.
As the NY Daily News reports this morning, "This was probably not Mayor Bloomberg's idea of bipartisanship when he quit the Republican party: Lawmakers on both sides think it could make it tougher for New York to win federal dollars." Congressman Serrano said it best when, commenting on the president and his party's likely reaction to the mayor's defection he remarked; "Why would they want to help him?"
The prospects of any deal being reached in July are also exacerbated by the apparent bad blood being exhibited between Joe Bruno and the governor. The accusations being tossed don't allow for the kind of atmosphere that is conducive to deal making. Add Shelly into the mix and the situation is truly challenging.
With all of the deadline desperation removed from the equation, however, isn't it time to set up an appropriate framework for reviewing the mayor's plan? The submission of the proposal to a full environmental review would be a good first step. In our view, the more the plan gets scrutinized the more average New Yorkers are going to see it for what it is: a taxing scheme that is an unnecessary burden, one whose transportation goals could be accomplished in a less intrusive yet more effective manner.
Silver went on to say that the mayor "insists he is the city," and never properly vetted the plan by taking it to the City Council for review. In addition, Shelly denied to the Post that he had ever signed off on the governor's proposal to set up a congestion commission to devise and implement the congestion pricing scheme; "'I did not agree to that,' Silver said."
In spite of yesterday's failure, Governor Spitzer vowed to keep pressing for a mid-July deal in order to "make New York eligible" for $500 million in federal transportation money. Billy Hammond reports that "all sides are holding out hope" that a deal can be reached. Yet, it appears to us that this likelihood has been made dimmer by the mayor's dramatic party switching.
As the NY Daily News reports this morning, "This was probably not Mayor Bloomberg's idea of bipartisanship when he quit the Republican party: Lawmakers on both sides think it could make it tougher for New York to win federal dollars." Congressman Serrano said it best when, commenting on the president and his party's likely reaction to the mayor's defection he remarked; "Why would they want to help him?"
The prospects of any deal being reached in July are also exacerbated by the apparent bad blood being exhibited between Joe Bruno and the governor. The accusations being tossed don't allow for the kind of atmosphere that is conducive to deal making. Add Shelly into the mix and the situation is truly challenging.
With all of the deadline desperation removed from the equation, however, isn't it time to set up an appropriate framework for reviewing the mayor's plan? The submission of the proposal to a full environmental review would be a good first step. In our view, the more the plan gets scrutinized the more average New Yorkers are going to see it for what it is: a taxing scheme that is an unnecessary burden, one whose transportation goals could be accomplished in a less intrusive yet more effective manner.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Poor Choices
The mayor's poverty prevention initiative, as Nicole Gelinas writes cogently in this morning's NY Post, is a bureaucratic disaster that's just waiting to happen. The mayor wants to actually pay folks to behave better. As Gelinas observes, "The city's 'Center for Economic Opportunity' will pay people $20 per adult and $20 per child each month to take advantage of Medicaid."
Leaving aside the philosophical merits of this experiment for a moment, can anyone envision what it would take to monitor these proposed behavioral incentives? Just when the welfare rolls are diminishing, Bloomberg is ready to introduce a multi-billion dollar cash transfer nexus that is going to make all of the folks over at DC 37 absolutely orgasmic. Think of the thousands of workers this will necessitate. The potential for fraud will be nigh unimaginable.
And now for the philosophical message. Gelinas once again puts her finger on the essence of the problem. The mayor's program actually singles out the poor people who are behaving badly for a municipal reward. What about the thousands of poor folks who are behaving well? Will they be eligible as well for a cash benefit? And how will we distinguish among all of these folks? What societal message are we sending to those the kids who are currently going to school, using their library cards and taking their tests?
As we have commented before, this initiative fits in to the patronizing and elitist mindset that the mayor has become famous for. His menu labeling regulation-the posting of calorie counts at fast food restaurants-devolves from the inherent belief that those folks can't be expected to act well in their own interest without the help of their betters. This comes dangerously close to the colonial "white man's burden" philosophy.
As public policy it is an unmitigated disaster waiting to happen. It will, if implemented as a governmental program when this pilot ends, erode personal responsibility and once again make the government handout the expected benchmark of political participation for the city's poor. And this guy wants to be president?
Leaving aside the philosophical merits of this experiment for a moment, can anyone envision what it would take to monitor these proposed behavioral incentives? Just when the welfare rolls are diminishing, Bloomberg is ready to introduce a multi-billion dollar cash transfer nexus that is going to make all of the folks over at DC 37 absolutely orgasmic. Think of the thousands of workers this will necessitate. The potential for fraud will be nigh unimaginable.
And now for the philosophical message. Gelinas once again puts her finger on the essence of the problem. The mayor's program actually singles out the poor people who are behaving badly for a municipal reward. What about the thousands of poor folks who are behaving well? Will they be eligible as well for a cash benefit? And how will we distinguish among all of these folks? What societal message are we sending to those the kids who are currently going to school, using their library cards and taking their tests?
As we have commented before, this initiative fits in to the patronizing and elitist mindset that the mayor has become famous for. His menu labeling regulation-the posting of calorie counts at fast food restaurants-devolves from the inherent belief that those folks can't be expected to act well in their own interest without the help of their betters. This comes dangerously close to the colonial "white man's burden" philosophy.
As public policy it is an unmitigated disaster waiting to happen. It will, if implemented as a governmental program when this pilot ends, erode personal responsibility and once again make the government handout the expected benchmark of political participation for the city's poor. And this guy wants to be president?
Columbia Compromised
In yesterday's Crain's In$ider the newsletter reported on the fact that when the CPC certified the Columbia expansion plan this week, they also certified the CB's 197-A plan, a "community-friendly alternative..." Crain's, however, remarks on the fact the this alternative vision would severely truncate the university's expansion effort and gives it little chance therefore of being adopted.
Well, while its true that the community's plan would only give the university about 13% of the acreage it says that it needs for expansion, it is also true that a compromise proposal could incorporate aspects of both plans. There is no compelling reason, absent avarice, to simply turn the entire 18 acre parcel over to Columbia.
Well, while its true that the community's plan would only give the university about 13% of the acreage it says that it needs for expansion, it is also true that a compromise proposal could incorporate aspects of both plans. There is no compelling reason, absent avarice, to simply turn the entire 18 acre parcel over to Columbia.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Mayor's Autocracy Fought
As the NY Post is reporting today, the opposition to the mayor's congestion tax seems to be stiffening in the assembly. As the Post says, "Assembly Democrats met privately late Monday for nearly three hours to discuss the issue...The overwhelming sentiment was that no deal on congestion pricing would get done..."
In fact, the opposition is so intense that the general feeling coming out of the caucus meeting was that the congestion tax, "is likely dead for good," since so many members vehemently oppose the measure "on principle." This large contingent sees the tax as simply "class warfare against the middle class." Speaker Silver's take here is that congestion can be alleviated without resort to the mayor's tax plan.
Opponents of the concept are not, however, resting on any assumption that this deal is dead. Today, a contingent of Queens civic groups, led by the indomitable Corey Bearak, are joining with Councilman David Weprin at 11:00 AM to march from the foot of the Brooklyn Bridge to City Hall for a press conference denouncing the congestion tax. More of these protests will follow to insure that the mayor's scheme doesn't re-emerge, in Freddy Kruger-like fashion, in a special session in July.
In fact, the opposition is so intense that the general feeling coming out of the caucus meeting was that the congestion tax, "is likely dead for good," since so many members vehemently oppose the measure "on principle." This large contingent sees the tax as simply "class warfare against the middle class." Speaker Silver's take here is that congestion can be alleviated without resort to the mayor's tax plan.
Opponents of the concept are not, however, resting on any assumption that this deal is dead. Today, a contingent of Queens civic groups, led by the indomitable Corey Bearak, are joining with Councilman David Weprin at 11:00 AM to march from the foot of the Brooklyn Bridge to City Hall for a press conference denouncing the congestion tax. More of these protests will follow to insure that the mayor's scheme doesn't re-emerge, in Freddy Kruger-like fashion, in a special session in July.
Fast Food Regs-Not so Fast
The lawsuit that was recently brought against the Department of Health's silly and expensive menu labeling regulation, has led the NYC DOH to postpone implementation of its rule until October. As the NY Times reports this morning; "The lawsuit, filed last week by the New York State Restaurant Association, contends that the regulation conflicts with federal nutritional labeling laws..."
And not only that. The requirement that the 2300 fast food outlets that had already been providing customers with nutritional information in the city should now post calorie contents of their offerings right up on their menus and menu boards, is not based on any public health evidence that the regulation would have any impact on healthier customer choice.
It is all part of a big brother mentality that believes that fast food customers aren't smart enough to make healthy choices without the government's heavy-handed intervention. In effect, as the suit contends, the health department is conducting a large-scale social science experiment to see if the posting of calories will lead to healthier eating. It is doing so, however, by forcing the fast food franchisees of the city-and only these operators (since the other 90% of the restaurants are exempt)-to spend tens of millions of dollars so the city can run its public health experiment.
All of which is sad, because Councilman Joel Rivera has introduced legislation that would allow for the collaboration between the industry and the city in developing better methods for getting nutritional information to fast food customers. The DOH and council leadership has resisted this compromise effort, the lawsuit is the inevitable result of the city's unwillingness to be reasonable. Now the resolution of the issue goes into the courts, instead of the political arena where it could have been resolved if the city had not been so intransigent.
And not only that. The requirement that the 2300 fast food outlets that had already been providing customers with nutritional information in the city should now post calorie contents of their offerings right up on their menus and menu boards, is not based on any public health evidence that the regulation would have any impact on healthier customer choice.
It is all part of a big brother mentality that believes that fast food customers aren't smart enough to make healthy choices without the government's heavy-handed intervention. In effect, as the suit contends, the health department is conducting a large-scale social science experiment to see if the posting of calories will lead to healthier eating. It is doing so, however, by forcing the fast food franchisees of the city-and only these operators (since the other 90% of the restaurants are exempt)-to spend tens of millions of dollars so the city can run its public health experiment.
All of which is sad, because Councilman Joel Rivera has introduced legislation that would allow for the collaboration between the industry and the city in developing better methods for getting nutritional information to fast food customers. The DOH and council leadership has resisted this compromise effort, the lawsuit is the inevitable result of the city's unwillingness to be reasonable. Now the resolution of the issue goes into the courts, instead of the political arena where it could have been resolved if the city had not been so intransigent.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Columbia's ULURP Begins
As Sewell Chan is reporting in today's City Room post, the City Planning Commission has certified the application by Columbia to expand its campus into West Harlem. Chan highlights the areas of disagreement between the university, its community critics and the area's community board. Chief among these concerns is Columbia's use of eminent domain to eject local businesses from the impacted neighborhood.
The community board now has 60 days to consider the plan after CPC rejected the community's call for further delay so that CB#9 wouldn't have to act on this application in the summer while many people are away. CPC spokeswoman Rachaele Raynoff told the Times that a two week delay had already been granted which, considering that the final disposition would be pushed to the middle of August, amounts to little more than ice in the winter (or heat in the summer). This issue will certainly heat up in the next few weeks as Columbia prepares to bring its act to the community board.
The community board now has 60 days to consider the plan after CPC rejected the community's call for further delay so that CB#9 wouldn't have to act on this application in the summer while many people are away. CPC spokeswoman Rachaele Raynoff told the Times that a two week delay had already been granted which, considering that the final disposition would be pushed to the middle of August, amounts to little more than ice in the winter (or heat in the summer). This issue will certainly heat up in the next few weeks as Columbia prepares to bring its act to the community board.
Willets Point: A Pig in a Poke
Clearly, the development of Willets Point is not something that will proceed smoothly under the current EDC scenario. As we have been pointing out, the City Council would be crazy to allow the administration to ULURP the area and throw out all of the businesses, without any developer in place.
At last week's council hearings, this skepticism was voiced by anumber of key council members. It will be interesting to see just how strongly the council remains once the mayor's key ally across city hall weighs in on all of this.
At last week's council hearings, this skepticism was voiced by anumber of key council members. It will be interesting to see just how strongly the council remains once the mayor's key ally across city hall weighs in on all of this.
London Assumptions Falling Down
Just as the congestion taxing scheme appears headed for a postponement, comes a fascinating piece in the NY Post on the impacts of the congestion idea on the city of London. It's not that the Post article finds universal condemnation from Londoners, it's that the plan has some far reaching implications-some of them unpleasant- that many New Yorkers may not be prepared to deal with.
In particular, there is a clear indication, as we have been warning, that the plan will seriously hurt small businesses who need to deliver to, or service customers in, the congestion zone: "But while most have sought ways to avoid having to pay, some-like contractors and deliverymen-have had no choice. 'I spend two hundred pounds {about $400} a week on it, 'said Paul Bowles, who runs a custom window installation business. 'You have to roll that onto your clients...'"
What is remarkable here is that the city of London has never bothered to do any kind of economic impact analysis on the congestion tax plan. And of course the mayor, in his full court press for the New York version, abjures any real in-depth evaluation of any of the potential negative consequences of the plan.
Yet without this kind of analysis it is difficult to make any accurate judgements about the benefits of the mayor's grand scheme-for without a cost ledger, the real impact of the idea simply cannot be judged. And when we add to this, the phony enviro-asthma posturing of Mayor Mike, we should all be glad that Shelly Silver, along with New Jersey Governor Corzine, is exercising caution.
Which brings us to the larger issue of mayoral motivation. As the plan moves inexorably forward (in spite of the public's deep skepticism-see new Q-Poll); with a momentum resulting from the tremendous confluence of political power and money, it is important to step back and contemplate where this born-again environmental tsunami is coming from. Our answer is quite simple: this is all part of a unique special interest crusade. That special interest is enveloped in the mayor's hubris; an arrogance that is pushing him to promote a concept that will be useful in marketing Team Bloomberg on the national stage.
In particular, there is a clear indication, as we have been warning, that the plan will seriously hurt small businesses who need to deliver to, or service customers in, the congestion zone: "But while most have sought ways to avoid having to pay, some-like contractors and deliverymen-have had no choice. 'I spend two hundred pounds {about $400} a week on it, 'said Paul Bowles, who runs a custom window installation business. 'You have to roll that onto your clients...'"
What is remarkable here is that the city of London has never bothered to do any kind of economic impact analysis on the congestion tax plan. And of course the mayor, in his full court press for the New York version, abjures any real in-depth evaluation of any of the potential negative consequences of the plan.
Yet without this kind of analysis it is difficult to make any accurate judgements about the benefits of the mayor's grand scheme-for without a cost ledger, the real impact of the idea simply cannot be judged. And when we add to this, the phony enviro-asthma posturing of Mayor Mike, we should all be glad that Shelly Silver, along with New Jersey Governor Corzine, is exercising caution.
Which brings us to the larger issue of mayoral motivation. As the plan moves inexorably forward (in spite of the public's deep skepticism-see new Q-Poll); with a momentum resulting from the tremendous confluence of political power and money, it is important to step back and contemplate where this born-again environmental tsunami is coming from. Our answer is quite simple: this is all part of a unique special interest crusade. That special interest is enveloped in the mayor's hubris; an arrogance that is pushing him to promote a concept that will be useful in marketing Team Bloomberg on the national stage.
Choking on the Mayor's Rationale
We have been commenting all along now about the hypocrisy involved in the mayor's use of the asthma bogeyman as a method of selling his congestion tax. You simply can't have any credibility on this issue if, on the one hand, you make the linkage between cars and asthma while, on the other hand, you continue to promote shopping centers and box stores in areas where high incidences of the disease are found.
This hypocritical stance is brought out this morning in Andrew Wolf's incisive column in today's NY Sun. Wolf, however, takes the issue a step further by questioning the "junk science" behind the asthma-auto pollution nexus. He rightfully points out that scientists have underscored the fact that the etiology of asthma is found in insect and rodent infestation and not from auto emissions. This doesn't mean that auto-induced pollution is good for you, just that the asthma fear mongering is not something that Dr. Bloomberg should be doing.
But Wolf, taking up our initial point here, also makes the point that Bloomberg's use of this scare tactic contradicts the mayor's economic development efforts-something that Wolf supports unreservedly: "By buying into similar arguments, the mayor undermines his own initiatives." Which only serves to further highlight the degree to which the mayor's new found greenness is pure bunk; and is designed to create an appealing national narrative in the furtherance of Bloomberg's own political ambitions.
This hypocritical stance is brought out this morning in Andrew Wolf's incisive column in today's NY Sun. Wolf, however, takes the issue a step further by questioning the "junk science" behind the asthma-auto pollution nexus. He rightfully points out that scientists have underscored the fact that the etiology of asthma is found in insect and rodent infestation and not from auto emissions. This doesn't mean that auto-induced pollution is good for you, just that the asthma fear mongering is not something that Dr. Bloomberg should be doing.
But Wolf, taking up our initial point here, also makes the point that Bloomberg's use of this scare tactic contradicts the mayor's economic development efforts-something that Wolf supports unreservedly: "By buying into similar arguments, the mayor undermines his own initiatives." Which only serves to further highlight the degree to which the mayor's new found greenness is pure bunk; and is designed to create an appealing national narrative in the furtherance of Bloomberg's own political ambitions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
