Author: Larry Littlefield

That's what the newspapers are saying, with the assumption that Bruno and Silver, paid by lobbyists to keep existing fiscal priorities and self-interested in keeping existing political procedures, are united in opposition. I hope not.

But Spitzer does have another option, one alluded to by Bill Hammond of the Daily News: get people like Tom Suozzi, Tom Golisano, and perhaps even Mike Bloomberg behind at least part of his agenda. All three have shown an interest in structural change, and the first two have shown a willingness to go after the powers that be rather than just sucking up to them. Even Mario Cuomo called for a constitutional convention the last time it was on the ballot.

If anyone who finds they agree with me is wondering how I'll be voting, it pretty much conforms to those rules:

• At the local level, I generally vote against Democrats in New York City.  Even decent Democrats have often had to run as something else in this town, especially since the reform movement within the party seems to have gone native.
• At the federal level, I always vote against Republicans.  They've lost me on the generational equity issue since Reagan.  Among other issues.  I was first eligible to vote in 1980.  I haven't voted for a Republican at the federal level since.
• At the state level, I almost always vote against incumbents, regardless of party.  I made an exception for my Assemblymember once based on alleged participation in a revolt against the way things are.  I was later disappointed, and ran against him as a minor party candidate.  I don't recall voting for any other state incumbents.

I've voted for some politicians over the years, but it's been rare.  I'll vote for Spitzer, though I would have preferred Suozzi.  I voted for Hevesi in the past, but will likely revert to rule.  The local candidate for State Senate, an open seat, has potential.  I voted for Moynihan.  In general, however, these rules have applied ever since I came to know about what I know now.

After several months of posting data and complaints, I have spent the last month detailing what I would do at the state level if it were up to me. Now that I’m on record, the reader will have some appreciation of my perspective as I attempt to judge the policies of the next administration in Albany. I really won’t know what they have done until the data comes in some years later, since you cannot go by what they say, but I’ll try my best. My point of view, however, isn’t just a collection of initiatives, or even root-and-branch overhauls, such as I have written about thus far. It is a set of policies and priorities the spring directly from fundamental principles. Do expect any of my specific suggestions to be enacted next year? No. But I am hoping that state government will move closer to the operating principles I would like to see, and farther from those that have been in effect in recent decades. As a summary, I’ll plagiarize what I wrote when I was a candidate for (or rather against) state –legislature as to what those principles theirs and mine — are.

Given that all energy sources have environmental impacts and risks, people have to accept that while none is perfect some are better than others. Natural gas, solar power, wind and (waste disposal aside) nuclear are less damaging and less risky than coal, with its massive environmental impact, and oil, with its significant impact and politically uncertain sources of supply. And with hostility to the United States in the world, hostility to the Northeast in the United States, and hostility to New York City (and, by connection, the rest of Long Island) in the Northeast, Downstate would be wise to meet its own energy needs to the extent possible, and to diversify sources of supply otherwise, even at a somewhat higher cost (which would also encourage conservation) and despite some impact and risk. For New York City, relying on Upstate New York for additional electric power is a bit like relying on countries where Osama Bin Laden is popular for oil.

In prior posts, I covered the energy situation for transportation. The good news is that New York City is an inherently energy efficient place, thanks to its high transit use and many pedestrian trips. The bad news is there is no political leadership to improve things further, by organizing a large-scale carpooling system for places not readily accessible by transit, for example. This post is about the energy required for other purposes, for heating, cooling, and use in buildings. Here again, the good news is that New York City is inherently efficient, since attached houses, apartment buildings, large office buildings, and other commercial space in multistory mixed-use buildings have less exterior surface area per square foot, and thus require less energy to heat and cool. And, the New York City lifestyle is energy efficient, because New Yorkers have less (because there is nowhere to put it) but do more. Making, moving and disposing of goods takes more energy than services, which rely on the human energy New York has in abundance. The bad news is that Downstate New York faces a local shortage of both electricity and fuel for heating, cooling and cooking — above and beyond the overall energy problem in the Untied States and the world — based on access to supply. And NIMBY’s gone wild, both outside the Downstate area and inside it, are blocking any and all possible solutions to that shortage, stoked by puffery from pandering local pols.

Would-be Governors Eliot Spitzer and John Faso are saying the right things about transportation finance. That is the good news. They want to see major mass transit projects built to support the Manhattan-based economy that is the tax base of the entire state. Spitzer called the finances of the MTA the “greatest transportation concern” and said fare and toll increases, increased local funding, and other tax increases, as well as efficiencies, would be required – reversing 12 years of policy. Faso agreed. They both called for weaning the MTA off debt by going to pay-as-you-go financing; hopefully they have the same idea about financing road construction elsewhere in the state. The candidates even mentioned making tough decisions, a big change after the something-for-nothing-now, then move-to-Florida-later policies of the recent past. All good.

The day after I posted a proposed solution to over-development issues in the portions of Upstate New York closest to New York City, both the New York Times and the Poughkeepsie Journal had articles on the subject. They are worth a read if you are interested in what people are concerned about elsewhere in the state.

From the Journal:

"Increasingly I see it. You look up on a hill or a mountain and all of a sudden there are houses there that weren't there before. It feels like New Jersey. It's worrisome," said Carolyn Torella, a lifelong Dutchess County resident who lives in LaGrange. "I appreciate the landscape and the beauty of the area. It's a shame to see it go so quickly. My hope is there can be some middle ground between open space and development."