Room Eight is a member of the NYC BlogAds network.
Fool Me Once Shame On You, Fool Me Twice Shame On MeThe news is that the MTA may not be able to sell the West Side rail yards to help pay for the capital plan after all. The deal between the MTA and developer Tishman Speyer fell through. Some time ago, the New York City Partnership (equivalent to the Chamber of Commerce) put out a report saying the Second Avenue Subway (SAS) should be cancelled, since the Upper East Side is already built out and that investment wouldn't generate growth, but the Flushing Line extension was critical because it would open up a new area to development. I wrote to them in opposition. My response at the time was that the promise of the SAS already induced lots of building on the East Side, and the failure to deliver left Upper East Side residents paying massive taxes while cramming onto the Lex like sardines. If the Partnership was against the SAS from a cost-benefit perspective, I said, what it should be in favor of on the West Side was promising the Flushing Extension, borrowing money for the Flushing Extension, planning the Flushing Extension, having lots of people invest in new buildings expecting to be served by the Flushing Extension, collecting massive taxes on those new buildings, but then NEVER ACTUALLY BUILD IT. Future residents and workers of Hudson Yards could walk over to 8th Avenue and cram on the 8th Avenue line instead. Per the New York Times: "The developer was also negotiating with city officials over other promised West Side projects, including the subway line. If the cost of the subway exceeded $2.1 billion, Tishman Speyer wanted assurances that either the state or the city would provide additional financing. It never got them." LOOKS LIKE MY SUGGESTION DIDN'T WORK! So what does that say about all those parents who elected to stay in New York City because they were promised decent schools, but got teachers who retire at 62 instead of 55 instead? Or, for that matter, anyone else is promised anything while those who matter take money off the top? Perhaps they aren't as smart or powerful as Tishman Speyer.And here is what younger generations have to look forward to:
Vallejo, California City Officials Vote to File for Bankruptcy By Michael B. Marois May 7 (Bloomberg) -- Vallejo, California's city council voted to go into bankruptcy, saying the city doesn't have enough money to pay its bills after talks with labor unions failed to win salary concessions from fire fighters and police. Survey: 1 in 10 boomers borrowing for everyday expenses Associated Press Compared with older people, a greater percentage of younger baby boomers, those 45 to 54, said they were cutting back on medications, prematurely withdrawing retirement funds and postponing paying bills. Here Come the Millennials By BOB HERBERT, New York Times "A number of studies, including new ones by the Center for American Progress in Washington and by Demos, a progressive think tank in New York, have shown that Americans in this age group are faced with a variety of challenges that are tougher than those faced by young adults over the past few decades. Among the challenges are worsening job prospects, lower rates of health insurance coverage and higher levels of debt." "We know that the generation immediately preceding the Millennials is struggling. Men who are now in their 30s, the prime age for raising a family, earn less money than members of their fathers’ generation did at the same age. In 1974, the median income for men in their 30s (using today’s inflation-adjusted dollars) was about $40,000. The figure for men in their 30s now is $35,000." And with all that, who needs an even better deal? Those who have taken all they can already and left others with less, according to the NY State Legislature. What does this second post have to do with the Second Avenue Subway - absolutely nothing. And why do you empathize with the developers who built in anticipation of the second Avenue Subway. It's not like they are losing money on their investments. Nor would developers who chose to gamble on the expansion of the 7 train further into Manhattan. Even if the second avenue subway line is built, it won't increase the average wages of a 30 year old male - unless he gets a unionized job with benefits from the MTA. Nor will it help the city in California that is considering bankruptcy (Oh yeah you forgot to mention that the bankruptcy filing is causing by foreclosures and subprime lendors, not overpaying the workers) I can't believe what crap is being submitted as intelligent discourse on this blog!
As someone who lives near the current construction site of the new SAS all I can say is only New York City governement could be so dumb as to spend all this $$$$ on starting construction of a subway line, uproot local business, annoy local residents and then after digging up an entire neighborhood for over a year change their mind about the project. If after putting the residents of the area from 91st street to 96th street around 2nd Ave through construction hell for the last 6 month the MTA decides to change their mind about the subway I hope someone is shot! Was a comment on Mr. Popik's response on the pension sweeteners. The generational war continues.
As for feeling sorry for the Second Avenue developers, it's the residents I feel sorry for -- or at least those without parking placards. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/16/nyregion/16actuary.html?ref=nyregion Cited by Lawmakers, but Paid by the Unions By DANNY HAKIM Published: May 16, 2008 ALBANY — A bill offering thousands of additional city workers early retirement has been gaining support in the Legislature in recent weeks. New York City officials have protested, saying it would cost the city $200 million annually. Not so, lawmakers countered. It won’t cost a cent, they said, pointing to the review of a highly credentialed actuary to prove it. But what the legislators did not disclose, as they cited the expert analysis of the actuary, Jonathan Schwartz, was that Mr. Schwartz had not been paid by the state to conduct his analysis. His work was bankrolled by unions, including District Council 37, the umbrella group of municipal unions that drafted the early retirement bill, which is now moving through the Legislature. ... (POPIK PREDICTION: Paterson is going to get a whole plateful of pork, not a bit of it that New York can afford. It all should be vetoed. He's going to approve some of it, veto some of it, and then claim that it's a "mixed bag" for both sides--even though the bag of pork is all one-sided. It's really outrageous that all of this sails through the legislature, with nary a single objection. As I've said before, only a NYS Constitutional Convention can right the ship--and it's probably even too late for that.) That's the same union, BTW, that agreed to cut the pay of new employees by 15% when the "free" pension enhancement of 2000 (probably vetted by the same guy) didn't turn out to be free.
Post new comment |
And if the past is any guide, the pols will say yes to almost everything.
Our best hope is Gov. Paterson and his trusty veto pen.
The grab bag is open, and everyone's getting in on the action:
Should New York City workers be allowed to retire at 55? Sure!
Should nurses and midwives in city hospitals be allowed to collect pensions after only 20 years? Okay!
How about 20 years and out for bridge and tunnel workers or city correction officers? You got it!
But the big kahuna is a sweetheart deal coming up for a vote this week. It would ban local governments from doing anything to control the runaway cost of health benefits for retirees.