Category: News and Opinion

“Yassky has attractive credentials (smart, committed, excellent on gun control), with one drawback. He had to move three blocks to be able to say he lives in the district, continuing a pattern in which he seems a bundle of ambition and campaign contributions in search of an office. Previously, he had run for school board in Washington and for Brooklyn DA as well as for the Council.” 
New York Daily News Editorial (9/7/06)

“David’s obsessive ambition is still a concern. Sometimes it appears that he really thinks he’s going to be the first Jewish president. He’s spent his life looking for the next office to run for (from DC School Board to Council to DA to Congress) and is always starting his campaign about five minutes after (if not five minutes before) he unloads his moving van”
Gatemouth’s Blog (4/14/06)

During the Pataki administration, New York City’s pleas from the business community for overall lower taxes, and from poverty advocates for more spending on the poor, have largely been ignored.  Not so the whines of suburban New York about its high cost of living – high property taxes, high housing costs, and the lack of alternatives to multiple automobile ownership, all of which are pricing out the young.  When our politicians talk about bringing down the high cost of living, however, their “solutions” have generally involved subsidizing the high costs with taxes collected elsewhere, rather than reducing those costs.  Reducing taxes in the suburbs is difficult (but not impossible) because suburban living is expensive by design, and in some ways by choice.  And unless and until suburbanites become willing to change their choices and bring the cost of living down, the high cost of suburban living will remain a phony issue.

During the Pataki administration, New York City’s pleas from the business community for overall lower taxes, and from poverty advocates for more spending on the poor, have largely been ignored.  Not so the whines of suburban New York about its high cost of living – high property taxes, high housing costs, and the lack of alternatives to multiple automobile ownership, all of which are pricing out the young.  When our politicians talk about bringing down the high cost of living, however, their “solutions” have generally involved subsidizing the high costs with taxes collected elsewhere, rather than reducing those costs.  Reducing taxes in the suburbs is difficult (but not impossible) because suburban living is expensive by design, and in some ways by choice.  And unless and until suburbanites become willing to change their choices and bring the cost of living down, the high cost of suburban living will remain a phony issue.

During the Pataki administration, New York City’s pleas from the business community for overall lower taxes, and from poverty advocates for more spending on the poor, have largely been ignored.  Not so the whines of suburban New York about its high cost of living – high property taxes, high housing costs, and the lack of alternatives to multiple automobile ownership, all of which are pricing out the young.  When our politicians talk about bringing down the high cost of living, however, their “solutions” have generally involved subsidizing the high costs with taxes collected elsewhere, rather than reducing those costs.  Reducing taxes in the suburbs is difficult (but not impossible) because suburban living is expensive by design, and in some ways by choice.  And unless and until suburbanites become willing to change their choices and bring the cost of living down, the high cost of suburban living will remain a phony issue.

During the Pataki administration, New York City’s pleas from the business community for overall lower taxes, and from poverty advocates for more spending on the poor, have largely been ignored.  Not so the whines of suburban New York about its high cost of living – high property taxes, high housing costs, and the lack of alternatives to multiple automobile ownership, all of which are pricing out the young.  When our politicians talk about bringing down the high cost of living, however, their “solutions” have generally involved subsidizing the high costs with taxes collected elsewhere, rather than reducing those costs.  Reducing taxes in the suburbs is difficult (but not impossible) because suburban living is expensive by design, and in some ways by choice.  And unless and until suburbanites become willing to change their choices and bring the cost of living down, the high cost of suburban living will remain a phony issue.

 “Dear Emperor Gatemouth, In the land of pomposity, your reign is supreme.”

– Ravi Batra (who ought to know)

For New York City Residents, the Assembly is the good cop to the Senate’s bad. Those who have any illusions concerning what this means are reminded to read the following:

• Albany Primer, Why Does NYC Always Get Screwed at Budget Time
• Don't Print the Legend – The Real Story of the Commuter Tax Repeal 

The Member of the Assembly is the elected official in the City with the smallest constituency, allowing parochialism to be at its most manifest. There are 62 Assembly Districts in the Naked City; here are a few of their stories:

The big story in New York real estate in recent weeks has been the potential sale, for a purported asking price of $5 billion, of Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village, two huge “middle class” housing developments on Manhattan’s East Side, by the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, their developer and long time owner.  Metlife had previously sold its other large New York City housing projects, such as Parkchester in the Bronx.  Immediately, politicos have rallied to the side of the potentially embattled tenants of these developments, most of whom benefit from rent stabilization.  The local council member has proposed a tenant buyout, which he says will be possible with union pension fund money, “socially conscious” investors, and city subsidies.  If the existing tenants want to make a bid for the place, more power to them, although I advise that we are in a real estate bubble and any buyer will likely pay too much – one reason Metlife is selling.  But if they want to put city pension fund money at risk, given that the city would be required to raise taxes and cut services to make up any losses, and to receive tax breaks, I say forget it.  Since Stuytown and Peter Cooper village are large enough to be their own census tracts, we can use 2000 census data to find out some characteristics of those who live there.  And like Waterside Plaza, another development that was granted a city tax subsidy in exchange for a continued great rent deal for the tenants, residents of these developments are MUCH better off than most of the rest of us.

The big story in New York real estate in recent weeks has been the potential sale, for a purported asking price of $5 billion, of Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village, two huge “middle class” housing developments on Manhattan’s East Side, by the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, their developer and long time owner.  Metlife had previously sold its other large New York City housing projects, such as Parkchester in the Bronx.  Immediately, politicos have rallied to the side of the potentially embattled tenants of these developments, most of whom benefit from rent stabilization.  The local council member has proposed a tenant buyout, which he says will be possible with union pension fund money, “socially conscious” investors, and city subsidies.  If the existing tenants want to make a bid for the place, more power to them, although I advise that we are in a real estate bubble and any buyer will likely pay too much – one reason Metlife is selling.  But if they want to put city pension fund money at risk, given that the city would be required to raise taxes and cut services to make up any losses, and to receive tax breaks, I say forget it.  Since Stuytown and Peter Cooper village are large enough to be their own census tracts, we can use 2000 census data to find out some characteristics of those who live there.  And like Waterside Plaza, another development that was granted a city tax subsidy in exchange for a continued great rent deal for the tenants, residents of these developments are MUCH better off than most of the rest of us.

The big story in New York real estate in recent weeks has been the potential sale, for a purported asking price of $5 billion, of Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village, two huge “middle class” housing developments on Manhattan’s East Side, by the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, their developer and long time owner.  Metlife had previously sold its other large New York City housing projects, such as Parkchester in the Bronx.  Immediately, politicos have rallied to the side of the potentially embattled tenants of these developments, most of whom benefit from rent stabilization.  The local council member has proposed a tenant buyout, which he says will be possible with union pension fund money, “socially conscious” investors, and city subsidies.  If the existing tenants want to make a bid for the place, more power to them, although I advise that we are in a real estate bubble and any buyer will likely pay too much – one reason Metlife is selling.  But if they want to put city pension fund money at risk, given that the city would be required to raise taxes and cut services to make up any losses, and to receive tax breaks, I say forget it.  Since Stuytown and Peter Cooper village are large enough to be their own census tracts, we can use 2000 census data to find out some characteristics of those who live there.  And like Waterside Plaza, another development that was granted a city tax subsidy in exchange for a continued great rent deal for the tenants, residents of these developments are MUCH better off than most of the rest of us.

The big story in New York real estate in recent weeks has been the potential sale, for a purported asking price of $5 billion, of Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village, two huge “middle class” housing developments on Manhattan’s East Side, by the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, their developer and long time owner.  Metlife had previously sold its other large New York City housing projects, such as Parkchester in the Bronx.  Immediately, politicos have rallied to the side of the potentially embattled tenants of these developments, most of whom benefit from rent stabilization.  The local council member has proposed a tenant buyout, which he says will be possible with union pension fund money, “socially conscious” investors, and city subsidies.  If the existing tenants want to make a bid for the place, more power to them, although I advise that we are in a real estate bubble and any buyer will likely pay too much – one reason Metlife is selling.  But if they want to put city pension fund money at risk, given that the city would be required to raise taxes and cut services to make up any losses, and to receive tax breaks, I say forget it.  Since Stuytown and Peter Cooper village are large enough to be their own census tracts, we can use 2000 census data to find out some characteristics of those who live there.  And like Waterside Plaza, another development that was granted a city tax subsidy in exchange for a continued great rent deal for the tenants, residents of these developments are MUCH better off than most of the rest of us.