Jeff Dinowitz Criticizes Himself (Indirectly)

Congestion pricing is more complicated (4.00 / 1)

There are plenty of people who came out (and voted) against congestion pricing for very good reasons.  In western Queens, we had no desire to have hundreds of cars circling around looking for parking spaces so they can avoid the charge.  Farther out, where people (including middle-class and working-class residents) drive in to the city because there isn't a good alternative, they can't afford the extra charge.

Furthermore, as Rep. Anthony Weiner pointed out, the Bush administration would have used the revenue from congestion pricing (which would have amounted to far less than the $500 million you claim) to cut federal funding for the MTA even further.  While that scheme might have resulted in some reduction in traffic on the streets in and around the bottom third of Manhattan, it would not have meant any more money for the MTA.

I don't know Assembly member Dinowitz, so I won't claim that he has been a friend of higher funding.  I just want anyone who attacks anyone else to get their facts straight -- and you don't have your facts straight this time.

---

by: Dan Jacoby @ Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 00:04:48 AM UTC

What Machiavelli said (4.00 / 1)

---

by: Roatti @ Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 01:06:12 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

... (4.00 / 1)

It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both.

- Niccolo Macchiavelli

---

by: Michael Bouldin @ Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 14:29:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Facts Dan? (4.00 / 1)

"I just want anyone who attacks anyone else to get their facts straight", doesn't seem like asking for much.

However, "we had no desire to have hundreds of cars circling around looking for parking spaces so they can avoid the charge" isn't really a statement of fact.  It is an assumption and an assumption not supported by actual research. The people in Western Queens, and Western Brooklyn where I live, already have people circling looking for a place to park, its called congestion and the closer you get to Manhattan the worse it is.  Though in your neighborhood and mine way more people are slouching through in their SUVs looking for a free bridge into Manhattan as it is.

Likewise, Mr. Weiner assertion, that you quote as well is not actually a fact but an assertion. Your position that "it would not have meant any more money for the MTA" was indeed Mr. Weiner's position but it is, again, a supposition about something that would have happened if something else would have happened.  I don't think even Anthony would call it a fact.

Reducing traffic into Manhattan has substantial value to the "outer boroughs" particularly but not limited to your neighborhood and mine that serve as on-ramps to Long Island, Staten Island and New Jersey commuters looking for a free ride into Manhattan and choking our streets and crosswalks.  

Likewise Mr. Dinowitz, who threw every type of unsupported allegation, assumption and assertion at congestion pricing was serving the Westchester and Rockland commuter and dis-serving Bronx transit riders (the majority) as well as local residents who dare try to walk and live in the neighborhoods abutting a free route into Manhattan.

If this is what you call a fact based argument I can see why you have managed, successfully, to avoid election to public office.  Those who opposed congestion pricing saddled New York with the payroll tax, calculated what the payroll tax would yield and have been proven wrong by the passing of time.  Now that the MTA's financial crisis has been compounded it is time to watch Mr. Dinowitz, Mr. Kruger and Mr. Weprin come forward to blame the MTA.

---

by: Niccolo Machiavelli @ Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 00:57:37 AM UTC

Facts (0.00 / 0)

In London they call it the "rat run."  It is the enormous number of cars circling just outside the congestion pricing area looking for a parking spot.  That's a fact.

Rep. Weiner quoted Bush administration sources for his assertion -- and nobody (even Mayor Bloomberg, who petulanatly called Weiner's claim "stupid" without anything to back it up) challenged him ... not even anyone in the Bush administration.  That's a fact.

One more thing I didn't mention in my first comment:  Drivers coming in from New Jersey were given a special exemption from the scheme ... for reasons that still pass understanding.  Supposedly, the Port Authority was going to be tapped for a lot of money to make up the difference, but no method of collecting that money was ever put into the scheme.  That's a fact.

There were serious problems with the scheme, some that can be demonstrated as fact, others that were merely things that needed to be addressed but weren't.

My point, however, is that you impute to M of A Dinowitz motivations without anything to back that up.  Meanwhile, there were plenty of good reasons to oppose a scheme that was being foisted on us without full explanations or the time to get those explanations before a choice had to be made.  In other words, Mayor Bloomberg tried to shove this down our throats, and a sufficient number of people told him where to shove it.

M of A Dinowitz may or may not have been "dis-serving Bronx transit riders," although the vast majority of that district has no subway service, so the odds are that he WAS serving the interests of most of his district.

Once again, if you're going to attack someone, get your facts straight, and Roatti does not have the facts.

---

by: Dan Jacoby @ Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 01:48:51 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

You still have yet to list an incorrect fact in my diary (0.00 / 0)

still waiting...

---

by: Roatti @ Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 01:56:46 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Here are a couple (0.00 / 0)

You claim that his stand against congestion pricing "denied the MTA of a badly-needed annual infusion of some $500 million dollars."  Even Mayor Bloomberg didn't claim that this scheme would raise that much for the MTA, and the experience in London and Stockholm indicated that the actual number would be far, far smaller, unless the fee were tripled as it was in those two cities.  Can you imaging drivers standing still for a $24 charge just to enter lower Manhattan?

You also said that the defeat of the congestion pricing scheme was "on you and every other elected official in Albany who decided to side with the wealthy suburban car commuter over the vast majority of metro-area residents who take transit to work."  The assumption that "every other elected official in Albany" was siding with "the wealthy suburban car commuter" ignores the large number of elected officials (my own Assembly member included) who were siding with the people in neighborhoods that would have been overrun with cars circling and looking for parking spaces.

Finally, one statement of yours with which I completely agree.  You demanded of M of A Dinowitz (and, I presume, others who blast the MTA in press conferences but do nothing else) that he "start doing something about the MTA's long-term fiscal outlook or just shut the hell up."

It is ridiculously easy to complain; providing solutions is another matter.

Personally, I would like to see a massive trip to DC -- all 212 state legislators -- demanding a resumption of MTA funding levels to where they were a decade ago.

I would also like to require of the MTA that they open up ALL of their books, including showing what may be an enormous upswing in hiring of supervisors to no apparent purpose (I have talked with several MTA employees, all of whom privately complain of this).

The MTA could also move out of lower Manhattan and into offices in Brooklyn, Queens or the Bronx, saving huge amounts of money (and making commuting easier for those who would be reverse-commuting).

Those are just a few ideas off the top of my head.  I'm certain that there are plenty of others; perhaps you could collect them and suggest them to M of A Dinowitz at an appropriate (and public) forum.

---

by: Dan Jacoby @ Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 03:12:04 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Even if $500 million was an optimistic estimate (0.00 / 0)

2-300 mill would certainly help enormously.  I believe the issue about the circling for parking outside the entry zones was hashed out in the debate and an acceptable solution was worked out in the city council.  As for DC, the federal government actually gives a ton more capital funds than it has historically- it would be great if DC gave operating assistance, but the real culprits in that issue have been the state and city cutting the operating subsidies steadily over time.  Ben Kabak has done a great analysis of this here.  As for Dinowitz, he hates me and would probably oppose any idea I support just because I support it.  

---

by: Roatti @ Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 05:45:20 AM UTC

[ Parent ]