Tag: City Hall

So the State Assembly has non-voted down congestion pricing. Although I was in favor for reasons I explained here last year, so be it. My chief concern was that the state legislature would enact congestion pricing, claim that it had done its fair share for transportation, be believed, and thus escape blame for the onrushing consequences of all the debt dumped on the MTA from 1992 (or so) to 2009. I hope, now that CP is off the table, that blame will accrue where it is deserved: the MTA Capital Plan hasn’t been sensibly funded since Richard Ravitch was in charge, and the funding for roads has been no better. But I’ve said my piece on that problem, and will otherwise leave it to the congestion pricing opponents to solve.

Now that it has been established that crossing into the Manhattan Central Business district will be free, driving on the congested streets will be free, and parking there will be free for many, however, I believe it’s time to re-think how that scarce space on the street is allocated. With all the taxes I and other non-drivers pay for that street space, I don’t think we’re getting our fair share, and want more of it. Specifically, I want more street space taken away from motor vehicles and allocated to pedestrians, who live in an area or arrive by transit, and bicyclists. I am both. And, I want more street space allocated to those who use private automobiles on weekends, for pleasure travel and visiting, rather than on weekdays to commute, by ending the practice of paying extra (a lot extra) to avoid road construction during rush hours.

As Errol Louis wrote over the weekend, the New York City Housing Authority is facing a financial disaster similar to that faced by the New York City Transit Authority in the 1970s, and perhaps again soon. The causes are similar. “Solutions” that provided benefits to many politically important groups in the short run have proven to be a disaster in a future no one cared about. The NYC housing projects are, by (I believe early 1980s) federal law, the place of refuge for the worst off, most troubled and most vulnerable not just of NYC, but from anywhere. And, these people are only required to pay 30 percent of their income in rent, no matter how low that income is. At first, this federal burden was coupled with federal money that covered the net cost of the projects, the difference between what it cost to operate them and the paltry rent received. But more recently the federal government, because public housing is concentrated in NYC and has little support elsewhere, has cut funding for it. The projects have also been a politically convenient place for New York City to put those who for whatever reason become homeless. In fiscally difficult times, however, both the state and the city have cut their support, relying on the agency to shift burdens to the future. Moreover, the unlimited health care and the 2000 pension enhancement that are a boon to current and former NYCHA staff has sucked money away from services and maintenance in the projects. There is one key difference between the NYCHA and the MTA however. For public housing, the future is now.

Readers of this site may be interested to find out what life is like in New York City, as told to the rest of the country by the Associated Press. “Allison Weiss Brady, 36, a venture capitalist and philanthropist who is on the board of her family foundation, said she likes to be practical when buying handbags preferring to buy bags in basic colors. Still, she spends $20,000 per season on accessories and typically spends $5,000 per bag, much more than the $2,000 she used to spend a few years ago…Nadine Absolam, a 32-year-old Brooklyn resident, says she likes to have the trendiest designer items, but she said it's getting harder to come up with the cash. ‘My first priority should be my bills. But these designers bring out so many hot items that you must have these things,’ said the Pilates instructor. ‘I am always late with my bills.’ Absolam spends about $1,000 in clothing and accessories per month, about half of her monthly salary.” The Mayor and City Council hear your pain ladies. Among all the public priorities in this over-taxed, debt-ridden city and state, they decided an elimination of the city’s tax on clothing was one of them.

Before resuming my diatribe, let me say there is much to like in the city budget.

The unions of legend were socialist affairs: all for one, and one for all. The unions of today are more capitalistic — run for their own profit, minimizing services and maximizing revenues. For a given amount of money paid by an employer, those revenues are generally greater if the employer hires a larger number of lower-paid workers than for a smaller number of higher paid workers. The reason is that union dues are generally regressive, and take a higher percentage of pay the less the union member earns. As a result public employee unions often push contract provisions that not only are contrary to the interests of the broader community but also are contrary to the interests of many if not most members, in order to get more people paying dues. The current police contract negotiations are a case in point.

According to PLANYC2030, “our density, apartment buildings, and reliance on mass transit means we are also one of the most carbon-efficient cities in the United States; New Yorkers produce 71% less CO2 per capita than the average American.” I certainly agree with that concept; the specific number for carbon savings, however, is probably too high. Much of the world’s energy is used to make consumer goods and bring them to their point of consumption, and to produce the fuels needed to do so and meet other energy needs. But New York City doesn’t produce its own fuels, and doesn’t produce many of its own consumer goods either. These are made across the country, and across the world, and then bought, used, and disposed of here. Some of that coal being burned in China and diesel fuel being burned to move massive container ships, therefore, is needed to produce and ship goods that will be used in New York City. Properly counted, you can’t tabulate the city’s contribution to greenhouse gasses without asking “what about the stuff?”

As I discussed in my last post, PLANYC2030 is focused on finding the money to maintain the existing transportation system, shifting new development to locations near subway and commuter rail stops, and improving travel to and within the Manhattan Central Business district, New York State’s most important economic asset. I agree with most of what was said. In this post, however, I’ll discuss what wasn’t talked about in much detail — trips to the Central Business District from areas beyond walking distance from rail stops, and trips outside ones’ one neighborhood (where one can walk) to locations outside the Central Business District (where you can take transit). My suggestions, over and above those in the plan, follow. If you are not interested in planning and transportation issues, you might want to give this post a pass.

The Bureau of Economic Analysis has released 2005 Local Area Personal Income data, and while I will discuss it in detail when I have time, I can say that one thing continued to be true: excluding the Health and Social Service industries, which are primarily government-financed, Manhattan accounted for half (in this case 49.8%) of all the private-sector earnings in New York State. Not the city or metro region — the entire state. Given that just about everyone from Montauk to Buffalo is living off the economic engine of the Manhattan Central Business District directly or indirectly, it is no surprise that PLANYC2030 is focused on the transportation system that supports it. And with the cost of maintaining the existing rail and road transportation systems, let alone new transportation facilities, so great that one wonders if even Manhattan can afford it, it is no surprise that the plan merely restates many major projects and initiatives already agreed to, such as the Second Avenue Subway, East Side Access, and a new tunnel to New Jersey. The plan has, in reality, two new major proposals. First, it suggests using zoning to move new development to places with existing rail transit, rather than extending rail lines to new areas, since new rail transit lines are for the most part not affordable. Second, it includes a financing proposal to relieve CBD traffic congestion while also preventing the transportation system from going bankrupt and taking the Manhattan CBD, and thus the city and state, down with it.

Let’s say we have a public benefit, service, facility or square footage of space that theoretically belongs equally to everyone, cannot be increased at a reasonable cost, and for which the demand far exceeds the supply. How do you decide who gets it? Do you have everyone grab what they can as fast as they can, hoarding and wasting, while those with greater needs are left out in the cold — and disaster is risked if the public benefit, service, facility or space is overwhelmed? Do you use a political process where insiders with power get permits that are then passed on to other insiders, while everyone else, rich and poor, is left to do without? Or should those who have use of the scarce resource have to pay, with the funds used to compensate those who do without it, so that demand equals the supply? New York City has, in fact, has a scarcity of traffic capacity in the Manhattan CBD — and many other areas — on weekdays, and a shortage of electrical generating capacity at peak times on hot days. Today it uses a combination of a grab by those who feel entitled or are willing to sit in traffic (by driving over free bridges or cranking the air conditioning during power shortages) and political power (on-street parking permits) to decide who gets to drive to Manhattan and use electricity on 90 degree afternoons. PLANYC2030 has a different suggestion, and I agree with it.

The contract just reached between the city and the principal’s union contains some new ideas that are relatively fair to the rest of us. First, it includes higher pay for those with tougher jobs — running failing schools. Second, it ends the guarantee of an assistant principal job for assistant principals in schools that are closed down due to failure. Such
employees, if no other principal wanted to take them on, would be given the option of a buyout or teaching half a day. It also added merit pay, something I am less keen on given my lack of confidence in the ability of public sector managers to fairly identify merit, although the success of an entire school may be easier to judge than that of an individual employee. These, however, are half-measures, adopted after years of standoff with the City using the minimal leverage it has — deferring a contract and allowing wages to lag behind inflation, falling in real dollars. It was a limited gain from a very protracted fight.

Based on what I read in the newspaper, I'll give credit to the Freelancers Union and Councilmember David Yassky for sticking up for one of New York's losers: self-employed freelancers and owners of their own small businesses. Many of the former are employees in all but name, but designated independent contractors so their employers do not have to pay social security and unemployment taxes, and can provide tax-free health insurance to the higher ups and those with seniority but not to new hires. Most of the victims of this shift in practice are the young, yet another two-tier contract with a worse-off following generation. And the City of New York adds injury to injury by taxing the income of freelancers twice, once through the local income tax and once through the unincorporated business tax.