Important constitutional reading

by: simonstl

Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 22:17:54 PM EDT

Well, important reading for insomniacs and people who'd like change, anyway. We have a messy and deeply overspecified (but still sometimes underspecified!) state constitution.

There's been talk once again about the need for New York to have a Constitutional Convention. I don't love Rudy Giuliani's proposals for term limits or supermajority votes on taxes, but otherwise he seems sort of mostly on target. Check it out - you might be pleasantly surprised. It's not just Rudy, though: Mario Cuomo supports it (in a gossip column?), it's turning up in blogs of frustrated voters, and there's been plenty of murmuring in editorials.

Assemblyman Richard Brodsky's even put in a bill to put a convention on the ballot, "referred to government operations". He's also entered a bill for changing how delegates are selected.

So are folks here at TAP ready to run to be Constitutional Convention delegates, if such an election breaks out? I know there are challenges with gerrymandered Senate districts, entrenched party machines, and a lot more, but seriously - start thinking about running now. The next mandatory vote on having a convention is in 2017, which is a long ways away, but given current trends, it could well happen sooner.

$6.50 taxis vs. congestion pricing?

by: simonstl

Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 16:56:49 PM EST

I'd thought that the brilliant point of Mayor Bloomberg's congestion pricing approach was that it would put more folks coming in from suburbia on trains for their long journeys into Manhtattan. Today, we have a reply from Assemblyman Brodsky (D-Westchester), who seems intent on putting Manhattan pedestrians on the subway so that his constituents can drive more cheaply to work.

How? Start cab fares at $6.50, a $4 increase. Then reduce the fees for extra distances, so that cabs would get more use for destinations like JFK - places where we should probably be encouraging people to take public transit instead.

He'd also jump up a lot of fines, require less idling in public places (that part's worth doing anyway), and hope that the federal government didn't realize just how strange a plan this was when considering eligibility for traffic congestion grants.

One of my favorite jokes about New York City is the small army of designated-drivers at the ready in yellow cars, but generally, despite their being cars, the taxis are a necessary supplement to a system that lets people be pedestrians most of the time. I have a hard time seeing how Brodsky's vision can do anything but damage that key advantage to Manhattan's pedestrian culture.

I know, I know - it's all about constituent service, and Brodsky's constituents have lots of cars. So do lots of Assembly members. (And so do Dryden residents - but I take the bus to NYC these days!)

It could, of course, be worse.

Congestion Pricing: STILL Good for New York's Middle Class

by: ElanaDMIBlog

Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 14:05:21 PM EDT

This year on Earth Day, Mayor Bloomberg unveiled a sweeping 127-point plan for New York City to confront the challenges of population growth, aging infrastructure, and environmental sustainability over the next 25 years. As many New Yorkers know, one part of the plan is a proposal to implement congestion pricing in Manhattan below 86th Street. The Drum Major Institute analyzed the congestion pricing proposal, invited the Deputy Mayor of London to speak with New York City policymakers about her city's experience with congestion pricing, and concluded that the congestion pricing proposal would have a positive impact on the city's current and aspiring middle class. By the end, we were so impressed overall by PlaNYC's bold vision for a sustainable city that DMI honored Mayor Bloomberg for creating it.

But like so many policies crucial to the city's fate, congestion pricing requires approval from Albany before it can be implemented. Governor Spitzer supports the plan. The State Senate passed legislation to implement it. But the State Assembly has refused to act, despite the fact that $500 million in federal transportation funding may depend on quick action.

Today a new report (not yet available online) released by the Assembly Committee on Corporations, Authorities, and Commissions, chaired by Richard Brodsky, sheds some light on the Assembly's disagreement with the plan.  Unfortunately, at a time when New Yorkers need a serious discussion about the city’s growth over the next 25 years, about how we will deal with clogged streets, poor air quality, underfunded mass transit system, and the threat of global warming, the Assemblyman Brodsky's report instead offers a grab bag of critiques that fail to understand crucial aspects of PlaNYC 2030 and the congestion pricing plan specifically. 

First of all, it is absurd to describe a plan that would massively redistribute resources from drivers, who have a higher average income, to transit riders, many of whom who have very low incomes, as regressive. By proceeding as though the right to drive a private car cheaply into Manhattan were an evenly distributed "public good" to begin with, Assemblyman Brodsky fails to notice the millions of New Yorkers trying to work their way into the middle class who don't own cars and have no choice but to take mass transit, no matter how poor the quality. These New Yorkers are among those with the most to gain from congestion pricing and the nearly half a billion dollars in transit investment it would generate annually.

"Equity" cannot be defined as everyone having a chance to engage in behavior that has inherently inequitable impacts. As demonstrated in DMI's recent report, "Congestion Pricing: Good Policy for New York’s Middle Class," congestion itself disproportionately impacts the city's current and aspiring middle class. Middle-class New Yorkers already pay price for congestion with poor health, environmental damage, lower quality of life, and less economic growth, even though the majority of them never drive a car into midtown Manhattan.

Assemblyman Brodsky's critique systematically overlooks the negative impact of driving cars as compared to other means of transportation. Despite the fact that concern about reducing greenhouse gases is a major motivation for the congestion pricing plan, no reference to climate change or global warming can be found anywhere in the Committee report.

As an alternative to congestion pricing, Assemblyman Brodsky suggests we consider a far more regressive plan -- raising fees on mass transit riders (that is, "time of day pricing on mass transit.")  Not only would this proposal disproportionately burden lower-income transit riders, it would do little to alleviate congestion in our streets, would not improve air quality, and would worsen global warming by discouraging New Yorkers from taking less-polluting mass transit. Suggesting an increase in mass transit fees as an alternative to congestion pricing shows that Assemblyman Brodsky fundamentally misunderstands the aims of the congestion pricing plan.

From Bruno to Brodsky-the continuum from persistent fantasy to dull, dismal reality-which for NY?

by: robinia

Wed May 16, 2007 at 12:03:14 PM EDT

Would "Speaker Brodsky" be a change?

by: simonstl

Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 17:09:27 PM EDT

The New York Sun has an article on speculation that Assemblyman Brodsky would like to be Speaker, though they don't make it sound like he's looking for a Bragman-style coup.

I like Brodsky, some days. I thought his recent op-ed was pitiful, but it sort of makes sense if he's aiming to become Speaker.

Here's a hard question, though. Would Speaker Brodsky really be that much different from Speaker Silver? Would there be opportunities (outside of Westchester) for change?

[Update] I hit post, then saw NYCO has an interesting answer already:

but honestly, if this is the choice, I’d rather see a Speaker who has too much pride than one who merely has no shame.

Wow.