- Got tips? Send them to tips (at) r8ny (dot) com
- Blog on Room Eight
- sign-up to receive a daily digest by email
- Advertise on Room Eight
- Login / Sign-up
A Final Word on Congestion PricingIf I was Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, I wouldn't be concerned by suggestions that I shot and killed congestion pricing. At best, I'd call it a mercy killing; euthanasia. At worst, justifiable homicide. Drowned out, as usual, by the shrill tone of editorial boards looking to get a quick rise out of their readers, some columnists took a careful and measured look at congestion pricing and found that its advantages are dubious and its problems multifarious. And some otherwise ludicrous proposals put forward to rebut congestion pricing were pregnant with good ideas: an increased no-gridlock enforcement zone in Lower Manhattan; tighter no-cruising enforcement laws for livery cabs. That's not to say there weren't boondoggles mixed in that made discussing them politically impossible. In one case, these simple policy changes were rolled up with the idea, oft-rejected, of a rail tunnel from Brooklyn to New Jersey to cut down on truck traffic. Also unaddressed is the way Mayor Michael Bloomberg positioned his own very good ideas -- such as adopting a system to give buses a preference at intersections, keeping green lights green longer and shortening red lights to shave minutes off commute times, or all the wonderful transit improvements congestion pricing would have only partially funded (and MTA chief Eliot Sander would probably promise and then not implement anyway) -- as if they could not happen without congestion pricing. For want of debate that moved beyond talking points and into real policy, those good ideas were shredded with the bad. I must credit Bloomberg for agreeing to bend so far on the plan and, though he stonewalled as much as he could beforehand, making so many accommodations to its detractors. But it was still half-formed and piecemeal legislation, a cobbled-together compromise intended more for Bloomberg's self-importance than the breathability of city air. We are trying Silver for policyslaughter in the court of public opinion; very well. It is the opinion of this juror that he did the deed and was justified. He did it not only for the self-defense of his conference, as Gatemouth voluminously explains, but was also justified for other reasons: to end Bloomberg's strategy of out-and-out bribery, which would set a dangerous precedent if allowed to continue; to send those few earnestly interested in preserving the environment off to find policy that does not only improve the environment of the rich; and to reject an idea that has caused the cost of living in its flagship city, London, to skyrocket.
Apparently you came not to praise congestion pricing but to bury it, like it needed a deeper grave. Unfortunately, all of your good ideas do nothing to address the traffic induced by clearing the streets in the manner you suggest. Pricing of those streets is the only way to recover the diseconomies of congestion without inducing more vehicle miles travelled. Could be that there are other ways to slice the cake and a lot of the pro congestion pricing arguments can be recycled into redrawing our street scape to manage congestion, calm traffic and enhance surface mass transit. Maybe the Democrats saw that, saw no reason to give Bloomberg any credit by passing his plan, and will now get about work on a plan of their own that will capture some of those diseconomies. Mayb not. Mostly though, your analysis is more of and exercise in making the perfect the enemy of the good.
Richard Gottfried did not stand up for his district on Congestion Pricing New York's 75th Assembly district has been represented by an out of touch party hack for over 35 years with little to show for his efforts. Colleagues describe him as indecisive and lacking the leadership qualities to get promoted to the next level. He has also failed to adapt to the shifting customer base. Only wanna comment that you have a very nice site, I like the style it really stands out.
Post new comment |
Hot Topics
Gov Wire
Political Update
Google AdsSearchRoom Eight Extras |
delicious
digg
By JOSEPH J. LHOTA
April 15, 2008 --
CAN you imagine a tax increase in New York City without a public debate? Not just any tax increase - but one that'll generate almost $1.2 billion annually? And it's a regressive tax paid by everyone - regardless of wealth or social status.
You say it's impossible? Well, it just happened. A portion of the city's sales tax imposed during the 1970s fiscal crisis was scheduled to expire. Without any deliberation, the state Legislature and a compliant mayor extended that 1 percent sales tax.
During the 1970s fiscal crisis, the state increased the sales tax by 1 percent and dedicated the proceeds to pay off the debt incurred by the Municipal Assistance Corp. The promise was that when the MAC debt was eliminated, so would be the incremental sales tax.
Well, the MAC debt ended; the 1 percent sales tax was to sunset on July 1, 2008. Mayor Bloomberg, however, asked Albany to halt the sunset and reimpose the sales tax so that it could be used for general city operating expenses.
There's nothing implicitly wrong with extending a tax - so long as there's proper debate and public dialogue, especially among those who'll be paying the tax. But the tax was extended indefinitely with no discussion, debate or even hearings.
Why not use a portion of the tax to implement congestion pricing? We just went through a long-winded public dialogue on the subject with the goal of receiving $354 million in federal money for the project. That's just a drop in the bucket compared with the billions of dollars that'll come from the extension of this sales tax. Why didn't anyone think of dedicating a portion of this tax extension to congestion pricing?
Why not dedicate a portion of the tax to fund education in the city? Or to fund asthma elimination? Why not consider eliminating the tax and enhancing the viability of the city's retail industry?
These are all good questions that deserved to be deliberated by the public. But it's too late. In the wee hours last week in Albany, three men in a room, plus the mayor, decided to raise a tax without public input. We should all be outraged and scared when this happens.
Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once said, "Sunshine is the best disinfectant." Well, something here smells really bad. At a time when we need accountability more than ever in Albany and City Hall, our elected officials opted for Soviet-style decision-making. No discussion. No transparency. No accountability.
I am amazed that there wasn't one public hearing on this tax. What exactly does the City Council do?
The vaunted Citizens Budget Commission said nothing on the subject to assist the city's citizens on how to evaluate options regarding the tax. Not a peep was heard from the city or state comptrollers.
Not one city editorial board wrote a word about the tax. Should there be a tax increase? Should the tax be allowed to sunset? Is the tax extension good or bad for the city? All good questions, none of which has the added-value insight of the editorial pashas.
What else have our elected leaders done without our input?
Joe Lhota served in the Giuliani administration as deputy mayor and budget director.