A Train Wreck Named Desire

Anthony Weiner Self-Destructs

After Twenty Years in Politics;

Turns Out We Didn't Know Ye

This afternoon we watched Congressman Anthony Weiner's four-minute swan song, in which he showed the skills he had honed over twenty years as a public official. The Council Center for Seniors in Sheepshead Bay was crowded with over a hundred reporters and 40 TV cameras, a larger media scrum than he had ever assembled while he was politically alive. It made more than one viewer wistful for what Weiner might have been able to do for New York if he had had his head screwed on right.

Unfortunately, beneath his "YAVIS" exterior (Young, Attractive, Verbal, Intelligent and Successful) there lay a nest of aggression and insecurity so deep that the Congressman propelled himself into a prolonged and repeated pattern of personal behavior which is completely inconsistent with acting as a tribune of the people in a democracy.

Who can say what any of us have in our minds? Mostly, we wisely keep our thoughts to ourselves, particularly if they are socially or politically unacceptable. For an elected official to engage in reckless conversations with numerous strangers, while identifying himself to them as a Member of Congress, a substantial part of his mind must have wanted to be discovered and for the charade to end. When last month he inadvertently pressed 'reply to all' and set off the firestorm which devoured his career, he was possibly, at one level or another, opting out of a lifestyle which, to say the least, papered over a conflicted brain.

Although he was no genius, Weiner was a smart, diligent and basically moderate politician. He had the potential to be the outer borough middle-class successor to the Manhattan aristoi. He had difficulties with his staff, but that is not unusual when intense, demanding and self-important public officials employ decent, honorable people at modest wages who are unprepared to calibrate their lives to their boss's ambitions. That is putting it in a kindly way, but today is not the day to jump on a man who has just departed a life that he may find more precious than his own.

Weiner first ran for Mayor in 2005, and adroitly dropped out, leaving the thankless task of taking on Mayor Bloomberg to Fernando Ferrer. He was considered a likely candidate in 2009, but deferred to Comptroller Bill Thompson after the Mayor and City Council extended term limits. One line I recall being bruited about in those days, less than three years ago, is that Mayor Bloomberg was reportedly willing to spend $100 milllion on his campaign, of which $20 million could be spent on "oppo research", digging up dirt on his rivals. That was far more than would have been needed to discover Congressman Weiner's indiscretions, so the rest of the $20 mil could have been spent on enough media to ensure that all New Yorkers could consider the fruits of the negative research.

Probably the Mayor didn't threaten to do that, just as Marie Antoinette never said: "Let them eat cake." But if enough people say you said it, or think you said it, or think it reflects your views, it can lead to a one-way ride on a tumbrel.

The teachable moment that emerges from this personal tragedy and public farce is that, with many people who we think of as leaders, emotion can overpower reason, and people can and do perform incredibly self-destructive acts. When one such person gains access to a weapon of mass destruction, our civilization will be at stake. We should do our best to minimize that possibility.

Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) said in 1962, "Since Adam and Eve ate the apple, man has never refrained from any folly of which he was capable." Lord Russell, who won the Nobel Prize for literature in 1950 and was regarded as a brilliant philosopher and mathematician, was forbidden to teach at the City College of New York in 1940 by a lower court decision which objected to his views on sex outside of marriage. Mayor LaGuardia refused to appeal despite pleas from Albert Einstein and John Dewey, among other individuals considered wise. LaGuardia was running for a third term (which was then allowed by the City Charter) in 1941. Russell was an avowed atheist, which gave offense to many believers.

Anthony Weiner's self-destructive behavior was not a threat to world peace. It was a ticking time bomb, but he and those who love him, are the only victims. Nonetheless, it should be a wake-up call for those seeking an honest, rational, perceptive and moderate candidate to run for Mayor of the City of New York in 2013, which is not as far off as people may believe.

Those interested should be judged on their character and achievements, rather than their promises, intrigues, race, religion, gender or sexual orientation. The same principle that forbids discrimination on those bases should also forbid favoritism on the basis of what is called "identity politics". The amount of money that each man or woman has already collected from those who hope to benefit by their election should not overwhelm merit as the basis for choice between candidates.

Live 19 Months Longer

Mayoral Bill Bans Smoking

In City Parks and Beaches

Mayor Bloomberg this afternoon signed a local law that would prohibit smoking in city parks and beaches.

The bill was approved by the City Council on February 2, twenty days ago. The Council vote was 36 in favor and 12 opposed. 3 members were excused. In the municipal legislature, that is considered a close vote on a controversial issue. On most questions put before the Council, fewer than a handful of members differ from the majority, which usually represents the views of the Speaker (Christine Quinn). Many bills are approved without dissent, any problems either having been resolved in committee or vanishing in thin air.

None of the naysayers on the Council appeared at the public hearing and signing ceremony, nor did any tobacco lobbyists or libertarians, although all were welcome to attend. Speaker Quinn was not present either, although she often attends hearings on legislation. She deserves credit for its passage, although she may not want to dwell on it. Nonetheless, some people will live longer because of this legislation.

Under the City Charter, a public hearing is required before the Mayor signs or vetoes a bill. As a result of the opponents' failure to show up, the hearing was more a pep rally for the bill than an argument over its merits. The mayor spoke first, followed by the two relevant commissioners, Dr. Thomas M. Farley of Health and Mental Health, and Adrian Benepe of Parks. Then came the lead sponsor of the bill, Councilmember Gale Brewer, followed by the chairs of the Health Committee, Maria del Carmen Arroyo, and the Parks Committee, Melissa Mark-Viverito.

The Council vote was as follows, for those of you who know some of them as individuals:

Yes: Quinn, Carmen Arroyo, Brewer, Cabrera, Chin, Comrie, Crowley, Dickens, Dromm, Eugene, Ferreras, Foster, Garodnick, Gennaro, Gentile, Gonzalez, Greenfield, James, Koo, Koppell, Koslowitz, Lappin, Levin, Mark-Viverito, Nelson, Recchia, Reyna, Rodriguez, Rose, Seabrook, Vacca, Vallone, Van Bramer, Vann, Weprin, Wills

No: Dilan, Fidler, Halloran, Ignizio, Jackson, Lander, Mealy, Mendez, Oddo, Sanders, Ulrich, Williams

Excused: Barron, Palma, Rivera

Four of the twelve No votes came from the five Republicans on the Council, with Peter Koo of Flushing the sole Republican supporter of the bill.

This blogger attended the hearing in support of the bill, but that was hardly necessary. The first local law to restrict smoking was adopted by the Council in 1988, although it had been introduced by a number of sponsors, including the Councilmember-at-large from Manhattan, more than five years earlier. It was written to complement the Clean Indoor Air Act which Assemblyman Pete Grannis carried for many years in the State Legislature until it passed in 1989. After thirty-two years in the Assembly, Grannis was appointed State Commissioner of Environmental Conservation, serving in the Spitzer and Paterson terms. He was recently appointed First Deputy Comptroller under Comptroller Tom DiNapoli.

The principal argument for the bill is that it will prolong people's lives if they are not exposed to the toxic brew of second-hand smoke. That is smoke which has already passed through someone else’s respiratory tract and is being recycled just for you. It is now considered scientific fact that the tar and nicotine in smoke is poisonous, and especially damaging to children, asthmatics or people with weak lungs. Both Mayor Bloomberg and Commissioner Farley said smoking was the largest preventable cause of death in the City of New York, and presumably our city is not alone.

When this witness pointed out that smoking killed many more people than gunshot wounds (now simply listed as GSW by local hospitals), but deaths from smoking were quiet and often not reported on or attributed to tobacco, Mayor Bloomberg added that smoking deaths (often from lung cancer) were usually far more painful and prolonged than deaths from gunfire.

Commissioner Benepe spoke of park employees' unpleasant and repetitive labors of picking cigarette butts out of beach sand, where the smokers have hidden them for aesthetic reasons. A child (or even an adult) should be able to run his fingers through sand without having to deal with burnt tobacco, paper and ashes.

As to woodlands, how many acres of forest land out west have been destroyed by fires started by carelessly discarded cigarettes landing in piles of leaves and eventually setting them ablaze? Those fires kill people as well as animals.

Popular parks like Central Park contain rows of benches, and people sit in relative proximity. The closer people are to each other, the greater the likelihood of their involuntarily breathing someone else's second-hand smoke.

The new law will go into effect ninety days from today, which is May 23. Enforcement will be left to the Parks Enforcement Patrol, in addition to posted signs and social pressures, since it is not likely to be considered a police priority. That should not stop cops, at least, from issuing warnings to violators. Fines will start at $50, which is modest compared to the $115 cost of a ticket for double parking in much of Manhattan. The bill is not intended primarily as a revenue raiser, but as an effort at behavior modification.

Another bill dealing with the conduct of park users was the Leichter-Lehner Pooper Scooper Law of 1978, which requires dog owners (or walkers) to clean up after their pets poop in the park. People now carry plastic bags, which they deftly fill with their dogs' waste. Not everyone is compliant, but many people do obey the law, and the problem has been substantially reduced, at least in some neighborhoods.

The Clean Outdoor Air Act, as the Brewer bill might be called, will probably have a salutary effect on public health. The life expectancy of New Yorkers has increased by 19 months during the Bloomberg era, which is noted for public health initiatives (e.g. campaigns against salt, smoking and trans fats). There may be fewer guilty pleasures, but if cleaner air keeps you or a loved one from the ravages of lung cancer or other tobacco-related diseases, it is probably worth it.

DIGRESSION: If what you are looking for is assisted suicide, Dr. Jack Kevorkian was released in 2007 at the age of 78, but the rigid terms of his parole prevent him from treating senior citizens, the disabled, or advocating euthanasia. Kevorkian was allowed to run for Congress in Michigan, which he did in 2008, receiving 2.6% of the vote. Last year, he was portrayed in the HBO film "You Don't Know Jack" by Al Pacino, who won Golden Globe and Emmy awards for his portrayal of the beleaguered physician. When you smoke, you are doing to yourself what Dr. Kevorkian is now forbidden to do. END

In reality, other measures to influence behavior, originally regarded as unenforceable, have had success. The requirement to wear seat belts in cars, helmets when riding motorcycles, the bans on cell-phone use while driving - all encountered skepticism but gradually gained public acceptance with the passage of time, public service announcements and the coming of age of a new generation. Some of these changes are works in progress.

The tired argument - "You can't change human behavior" - was used against laws prohibiting racism and promoting gay rights too. But persistent effort does result in behavioral change, not always and not completely. But if it saves lives and promotes public health and well being, it's worth trying, and to its credit, New York City has become a leader in public health.

Our last Health Commissioner, Dr. Thomas Frieden, is now head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a Federal agency based in Atlanta, GA. Mayor Bloomberg's first Housing Commissioner, Sean Donovan, is now secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. We have probably contributed more Federal officials than any other city except Chicago. Rule 10 - "I wonder why."

New Teachers on the Block

Layoff of 4666 Teachers Proposed

After State and Federal Aid Cut;

Union Alleges Mayoral Gambit

The city budget proposed yesterday is $65.6 Billion dollars. That is a $300 Million reduction from the current year, almost one half of one per cent of the total budget, and represents a serious effort to control costs.

The most striking part of this year's budget, covering FY 2012 (which begins July 1, 2011) is the projected reduction in the Department of Education staff by 6166 teachers, that is six Thousand one-hundred sixty six. Attrition will account for 1500 vacancies, leaving 4666 layoffs are on the table.

This is the opening gambit in what will be a four-month struggle. The city budget is adopted each year by the City Council and the Mayor in June, and a series of public hearings will be held this spring. It is highly unlikely that the final result of the process will be the dismissal of 4666 teachers laid off, but we believe it is certain that the teaching force in September 2011 will be somewhat smaller than it is today.

The scope of the proposed layoffs suggest that the mayor reduced the city's education budget. In fact, he did not do that. He said that the city will spend $2.2 billion more on education next year than it has this year. He attributed the shortfall to a cut of $800 million in Federal funds and the loss of $l.1 billion dollars in state aid. Governor Cuomo disputes the size of the cut, saying that part of the state reduction came a year ago, during the Paterson administration. But whenever the reduction came, the money is not in the school budget for FY 2012.

Bloomberg spoke knowledgeably for over an hour in the Blue Room, since the former site of budget presentations, the old Board of Estimate chamber in the northwest sector of the second floor of City Hall, was transformed nine years ago into the bullpen, a management technique used by the mayor at his eponymous corporation. The mayor used a body mike, an innovation of the Giuliani administration, which enables the speaker to walk from the rostrum to the PowerPoint presentation.

Years ago, when budget charts were first introduced, OMB staff scampered to the dais to display and then remove them. Technology has advanced, so the press of a button now introduces a new green and white chart. The mayor's speech was carried live on NY1, and streamed on the mayor's website. The streamed version, however, is much smaller than the TV monitor.

Bloomberg's speech displayed his mastery of financial issues facing the city, and his awareness of its difficult financial situation, caused by the combination of the recession, increasing demand for services, loss of control over Medicaid costs, and higher mandatory costs such as pensions and debt service. He said that was the reason that he sought a third term.

Newspaper accounts of the budget presentation varied sharply. The Daily News had a huge headline on page one, PAIN IN THE AX. Bloomy Sees Red, Whacks Billions From City Budget. Charts on pages 4 and 5 specified the reductions.

The Times took quite a different view on the budget. Its page one headline was BUSINESS TAXES BUOY OUTLOOK IN CITY BUDGET. Javier Hernandez' lede:

"Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, in unveiling his budget proposal on Thursday, summed up New York City's financial health with a phrase scarcely heard in the halls of government these days: 'It's good news.'"

The New Yorker magazine used to run items like this one under the caption: "Which paper do you read?"

The report that tax revenues were two billion dollars higher than previously estimated alleviated the sense of immediate crisis to some extent. It also cast doubt on the accuracy of all economic forecasts, even though the revenue estimates proved to be conservative.

There is speculation that the issue of teacher layoffs is linked to the mayor's attempt to change the LIFO (last in, first out) law in New York State. Under that law, seniority dictates that the newest, usually younger teachers, are the first to be laid off. The parties involved all deny any linkage, but that is the way negotiations, if any, are conducted. Besides, it is probably true that there is no linkage now, but who knows what will happen down the road.

The law that teachers must be laid off in reverse order of seniority is widely regarded as an impediment to quality education. President Obama and Secretary Duncan know this, as does anyone who is concerned with student outcomes rather than lifetime jobs for people, some of whom long ago lost their ability or willingness to communicate. On the other hand, LIFO protects teachers from arbitrary actions by political, corrupt or simply stupid supervisors.

OBSERVATIONS OF A SMALL BOY IN NEW YORK CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, 1940-1950

I know from first-hand experience (as a kid) in New York City public schools that some teachers were wonderful - I still remember their names today - a handful were terrible, and most were all right. One of the best, Dr. Julius H. Hlavaty, first chairman of the math department at Bronx Science, was fired for not answering questions about his membership in the Communist Party. He was ordered reinstated with back pay by the courts.

Mrs. Mildred Waltzer, who at the time taught at P.S. 152-M, on Nagle Avenue, was a wonderful woman who cared deeply about her students. She taught an ungraded class called O.A. (open air), which would now be considered special ed. She later became a principal in East Harlem. She wanted to adopt me, but fortunately my parents resisted her kind offer.

One of the worst, A.A., taught in Junior High School 52-M, appropriately on Academy Street. She was perpetually annoyed, although we had no idea why. One day, another teacher in the school, a Mrs. Good, died. The next morning, A.A. told her class, 8B-R, which included me: "Do you know why Mrs. Good died? It was because she was too good. I won't make that mistake." I can't say she frightened me (I was 11), but the fact that I remember what she said so many years later indicates that she did make a strong impression. She also rubbed her nose a lot, whether the kids saw or not. There was an art teacher, G., who was so fat she couldn't fit down the aisles between the children's desks. When she tried, the bad kids tried to poke her with their rulers. I felt sorry for her.

In a way teacher quality didn't matter that much because the smart kids knew the material anyway, but there were others who did rely on the teachers for information and instruction. Other teachers at 52, in math and history, were very good. One science teacher spent most of the class time fooling around with developed 13-year-old girls, who he brought to the front of the room to sit by him.

At Bronx Science the teachers were generally better. Some of the science teachers had Ph.D. degrees, but they were unable to get jobs in science because of the Great Depression and because they were Jews. Things were really different many years ago, which young people often have no idea of, although they do know a lot about computers, video games, cell phones and other devices. Each generation masters different skills.

The purpose of this reminiscence is to make the point that teachers vary widely in ability, dedication and mental health. If thousands must be laid off, the city should be able to get rid of the worst ones, regardless of seniority. It is really bad for kids to be stuck with an incompetent or hostile teacher, especially if they rely on him or her to teach them English, or how to read. After a number of years, some teachers get sick and tired of other people's children, while others don't know how to control a classroom.

One important factor is that if the teacher tosses the child out of class for disruptive behavior, the principal should usually back up the teacher and not return the child right away. That is seen as a reward for misbehavior, and weakens whatever authority the teacher had over the child.

School can be a wonderful place for instruction and socialization. It can also utterly fail to achieve those goals. Empowering principals and teachers is important, and school officials should not be intimidated by hostile and belligerent parents. On the other hand, sometimes the parents are right, and principals should have the judgment to make decisions on the merits, not simply on the basis of politics or threats.

I have serious doubts that public school children are being taught and supervised in the best possible way. The problem is that either we don't know the best way, or the people who do know aren't being listened to. Can the new Chancellor provide instruction or guidance in the most serious and compelling issue of public policy?

Mayor Tackles Pensions

Bloomberg Plans Assault

On Rising Pension Costs,

Asks Koch to Lead Drive

Mayor Bloomberg's tenth State of the City speech was delivered this afternoon in a restored 1929 movie palace, the St. George Theater, named for the old neighborhood, an historic district close to the Staten Island ferry. A spinoff of the President’s State of the Union message, the State of the City is an annual ritual which, in prior years, has told listeners about the city’s condition, often as the administration at the time wished it to be.

You can click on the text of the Mayor's remarks here. If you prefer to watch the speech, click here. The video is an hour long.

The speech was well prepared and forcefully delivered, indicating that the Mayor is regaining his groove after a recent series of unfortunate events which are chronicled by aspirants to his office in an article in today's City Hall newspaper by Edward-Isaac Dovere.

One initiative proposed by the Mayor dealt with the pension system:

"In the weeks ahead, we will make pension reform our number one priority in Albany. And today, I'm glad to announce that a great New Yorker has agreed to take up our cause: Mayor Ed Koch. Last year, he formed a group - New York Uprising - that convinced a majority in both houses, and Governor Cuomo, to pledge their support for redistricting reform, something I strongly support, too. This year, he’ll expand his crusade and if you know Ed, he won't do it quietly. Thanks, Ed.

"Working with Ed and our partners in State government, we will work to pass several basic reforms to bring our pension system into the 21st century.

"First, we can save $8 million a year right off the bat by consolidating pension systems, an administrative reform that will not affect benefits at all.

"Second, we'll seek a new tier for employees hired in the future that would raise the retirement age to 65 for non-uniformed workers. That would produce billions in long-term savings, and bring our retirement age in line with the private sector, even as we offer far more generous benefits. We can also save another $200 million every year by eliminating, for future uniformed retirees, what is effectively a $12,000 annual bonus, paid on top of full pension benefits every year around the holidays. City taxpayers just cannot be expected to give substantial holiday bonuses when so many of them are out of work or having their own wages frozen or cut.

"The third piece of our pension reforms would overturn the State law that prohibits the City from negotiating pension as part of the collective bargaining process. Pension and health care benefits are a substantial part of a City employee's compensation, and so it only makes sense they should be part of the collective bargaining process.

"Right now, State elected officials are setting pension benefits for City workers, and sticking another group - city taxpayers - with the bill. Again, our message to Albany is: we'll pay the bills, but let us get better prices. And the only way we will be able to afford raises for City workers in the future is if we can find some savings in our pension and health care bills. That is not a negotiating stance. It is reality.

"And so today, I will make this commitment: I will not sign a contract with salary increases unless they are accompanied by reforms in benefit packages that produce the savings we need to continue making investments in our future and protecting vital services."

Pension costs are an enormous problem all over the country as, under pressure from public employee unions, governments have given public employees ever more generous pensions, earlier retirement ages, tax-free disability pensions without the necessity of incurring actual disabilities, substantial overtime in the year before retirement which is reflected in swollen pensions, and other abuses negotiated by the finest lawyers, and assisted by pliant actuaries who brazenly conclude that these enhancements come at no cost to the city, without disclosing that they were on union payrolls.

Public employees, like private sector employees, are entitled to decent pensions, and should have the opportunity to contribute to a retirement fund if they wish to receive enhanced benefits. The problem here is that in the classic tug of war between labor and management over wages and pensions, the unions' political strength has driven management into the mud of deficit and despair.

In one way, the City of New York has been attempting, with limited success, to reduce employee pensions for 37 years. The first benefit reduction came on July 1, 1973, when Tier One was superseded by Tier Two, slightly less favorable to employees. A sharper reduction came in 1977, after Fiscal Crisis One in 1974-75. We are now under Tier Five, which covers employees hired after January 1, 2010. Governor Paterson promised the unions that in exchange for their not blocking the creation of the new tier, there would be no layoffs until 2011 at the earliest.

He almost kept that promise, delaying several hundred layoffs to December, which was practically 2011. Meanwhile, the state fiscal situation worsened due to reduced tax collections because of the Great Recession, Medicaid costs increasing by billions of dollars, and other billions going to supplement the pension fund, which is dependent to a considerable extent on the vagaries of the stock market. Although tax receipts and stock prices are now rising, they have a long way to go before the state's pension contribution can be reduced to an affordable level.

As an example of the way our top elected officials operate, Governor Paterson promised publicly that the state would not borrow any money in 2010 to balance its budget. However, the state deferred the payment of three billion dollars which was due to the pension fund. The result was the same as borrowing: the state has to pay interest on the three billion dollars it now owes the pension fund, and that will add to the state's debt service obligations for the foreseeable future.

The argument that what happened is not borrowing is specious. Instead of borrowing the money from banks, which might be increasingly reluctant to risk their capital in a state approaching insolvency, he borrowed the money from the pension fund, which is under the sole control of State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli, a loyalist who served twenty years in the Assembly where he was a trusted minion of the Speaker. That is why he was chosen for promotion to Comptroller.

Discussion of Albany leads to one outrage piled on another. It is hard to fault the unions for trying to enrich their members, when the people from whom they seek the handouts are themselves so hopelessly compromised. Yet reform must begin somewhere, for the simple reason that the current financial situation in which the State of New York is operating is not sustainable, barring an extraordinary turnaround in the economy, and even in that eventuality, relief would be short-lived.

Let me state that the people in Albany are usually (with some exceptions) not wicked or corrupt. They are part of a system in which they remain in power by pleasing others who support their campaigns and could, if they wished, support their rivals.

The power of union retribution was shown in 2010 in the defeat of Frank Padavan, a state senator from Queens for 38 years, who had served with me in the Lindsay administration. Padavan had headed the Senate Committee on Cities and was an ally of successive New York mayors. His downfall came after he supported a charter school bill, and the UFT, disregarding his prior fidelity to their interests, switched their endorsement to his opponent, former City Councilmember Tony Avella, who had run for mayor in the Democratic primary in 2009 but was defeated by City Comptroller Bill Thompson. Padavan's severed head could have been spiked and placed on one of the pillars that line the Appian Way, as a warning to other elected officials as to the power of the United Federation of Teachers.

We cannot predict what effect the recruitment of Mayor Koch to the cause of pension reform will have on the legislature. We believe he will try to shine the light of day on practices that have received little attention in the past, except from the beneficiaries of the special privilege. To achieve changes, it will be necessary to arouse public interest in the subject. With the Governors Cuomo, Mayors Koch and Bloomberg (and others if they care to join), a strong assault will be mounted against practices which have led New York and many other states - this is by no means a local problem - to the brink of insolvency.

Perhaps the State needs a Lehman Brothers experience to show the people the seriousness of the fiscal situations. Perhaps it can learn from the experience of others. Initially, the decisions will be made by the powerful three men in a room. But while they can borrow money, they can't print it.

Is the bubble bound to burst?

What Would Moses Say?

Koch Bridge, Carey Tunnel

Long Island to Manhattan,

Over or Under East River



Recent days have seen a flurry of activity on a previously quiet front: the naming of bridges and tunnels.

Mayor Bloomberg and City Council Speaker Christine Quinn announced Wednesday evening at a party in Gracie Mansion to celebrate former Mayor Ed Koch's 86th birthday that legislation would be introduced in the City Council to add the name "Ed Koch" to the Queensboro Bridge, also known as the 59th Street Bridge.

At the same time it was reported that both houses of the State Legislature had adopted legislation changing the name of the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel, which was opened in 1950 and charged a 35 cent toll, to the Hugh L. Carey Tunnel, honoring the seven-term Brooklyn Congressman (1961-74) and two-term New York State Governor (1975-82). The bill awaits signature by Governor David A. Paterson, whose eponym is the former 'silk city' in northern New Jersey.

The twin name changes are relished affectionately in an article by veteran NBC reporter Gabe Pressman titled HAIL TO KOCH AND CAREY and aired December 8. Read it here.

The Times digested the name changes the next morning in a column by Michael M. Grynbaum, BRIDGE AND TUNNEL TYPES. The column is very well done, and its best lines are saved for the closer:

"But the former mayor asked a reporter to wait a moment so he could share a quotation he had found in 'The Great Gatsby,' [a 1925 novel by F. Scott Fitzgerald], which he called appropriate for the occasion.

"'The city seen from the Queensboro Bridge,' Mr. Koch said, reading from the novel, 'is always the city seen for the first time, in its first wild promise of all the mystery and the beauty in the world.'

"'Nobody else has a bridge like that,' Mr. Koch concluded happily. 'Only me!'"

In Mr. Pressman's article, Mayor Koch is quoted as saying: "I'm not handsome, that's why the Queensboro represents me so well. And on my bridge I'll insist there'll never be a toll!"

The phrase that comes to our mind is: "From your lips to God's ear."

Unfortunately, there are lesser figures, all honorable men, who are eager to impose fees and tolls wherever they find human life or activity, or even death in some cases. But like the troll in "The Three Billy Goats Gruff", who wanted to gobble up anyone who crossed the bridge under which he lurked, taxers are sometimes frustrated.

The tradition in New York City has been that a bridge is a street over water, and the 19th century bridges, which once cost a few cents to cross, have been toll free for about a hundred years. The 20th century bridges were built largely by Robert Moses from the '30s to the '60s. Their tolls were supposed to pay the cost of construction, and then maintenance. They did, but that was not enough.

Since the MTA swallowed the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority in 1968, in part so Governor Nelson Rockefeller could rid New York of the once powerful Moses, who had insulted his brother in 1963, most of the bridge income has gone to mass transit subsidies. These millions have not, however, been able to keep up with escalating costs of transit agencies, where salaries, health care and pensions are growing at a rate that will be impossible to maintain, and incurring debt service for capital projects which are charged to operating expenses.

The bridge and the tunnel will have bright new names. We hope they enjoy bright futures in the new century.

But Can She Teach?

Klein Out, Black In.

Does She Know How

To Teach the 3 R's?



Mayor Bloomberg has appointed a new Schools Chancellor to take the place of Joel Klein, who resigned suddenly after eight years to take a senior position with News Corporation, where he will work for Rupert Murdoch. The new Chancellor, subject to approval by the State Education Commissioner, is Cathie Black, chairwoman of Hearst Magazines.

Ms. Black has no experience in educating children, but in today's world there is some doubt as to whether that is a liability, an asset, or irrelevant. One would imagine that if one were seeking to fill the most important school superintendency in the United States, some person could be found who was both a brilliant manager and had some experience in public or private education. The appointment was not required to have been announced within minutes of the news of Joel Klein's resignation to enter the field of publishing.

The new Chancellor will take office in the old Tweed courthouse, at 52 Chambers Street, where Mayor Bloomberg moved the staff of the Department of Education prior to selling its castle at 110 Livingston Street, which is now a condominium.

She can fill her staff with professionals, with degrees and technical qualifications, but how will she know which ones to believe? She has an extremely difficult task to perform, and we certainly wish that she is able to do it well. The bottom line here, however, will no longer be corporate profits, but children educated and prepared to succeed in the competitive world we are experiencing today.

Perhaps, with the current state of knowledge, no one has a clear picture of how to teach children to read and write the way their parents learned. In that case, Ms. Black will be an interesting diversion. It will take up to a year for her to learn her way around, but her managerial skills have been demonstrated in the private sector, and she should be a quick study as she settles down in Tweed.

Her success will depend on the strength, competence and different views of the people around her. We will watch carefully as she makes her choices. One thing that is clear is that there is mayoral control of the schools, at least at the top. Ms. Black does not come from a political club, but neither does she come from a schoolhouse. She is a high flyer in the executive suite, and her success is amplified by her gender and the bias she may have had to overcome.

What we will learn in the next years is whether her managerial abilities are transferable from the boardroom to the classroom. If they are, so much the better. But it is also possible that her personal skills, great as they probably are, may be unable to transform a system with over a million pupils, well over a hundred thousand teachers, and many more thousands of other employees.

The problem may not be in management systems or employee development. They just might not be prescribing the best way to teach. Schools of education are known not to attract the best students. Often what they learn is psycho-babble, with a heavy dose of political correctness and laced with deconstructionism. For one person to have a significant impact on a confused and divided culture would require great strength, character and judgment. It would also help to know something about education.

Mayor Bloomberg is likely to be de facto Chancellor, just as Mayor Giuliani was his own Police Commissioner, no matter who held the title. Bloomberg has made history by appointing the first woman chancellor, just as President Clinton appointed the first woman secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, and President Bush the younger appointed the first black man, Colin Powell, and the first black woman, Condoleezza Rice. Did these precedent-shattering selections bring about world peace? Well, they didn't bring about war, except when the President wanted it, in which case it began. The point is that symbols, striking as they may be, often do not affect the course of history. So it is likely to be in this case.

If I were State Education Commissioner David Steiner, I would spend time talking to Cathie Black and exploring her attitude and rationale for taking the job. Twenty-seven years ago one of Steiner's predecessors, Gordon Ambach, blundered badly by rejecting a waiver for Robert F. Wagner, Jr., the ablest public servant of his generation. Whether he made that decision because Mayor Koch had previously called him "pigheaded" on another issue, or whether he was channeling the Executive Chamber, has never been determined.

Waivers were granted by another Commissioner, Richard Mills, however, for Harold Levy (named by the Board of Education over Mayor Giuliani's strong objections) and Joel Klein (named by Mayor Bloomberg). It is likely that the mayor has already secured consent for Ms. Black's waiver, but if not, her membership in the corporate, managerial and financial elite should squelch any doubters. Also, there is no real evidence that anyone with paper credentials in education would be any better at dealing with the enormous challenges that Ms. Black is likely to face.

We do not denigrate her; she must have been good to achieve the success she has enjoyed. General Eisenhower had no civilian experience, and he turned out to be a reasonably good President. The job she faces is in some ways more difficult than his; so far, despite the press releases and selective statistics, no one really knows how to do it. Good luck, Ms. Black. You will need it.





StarQuest #717 11.10.2010 919 words

Tuesday's Two-Sided Ballot

Term Limits On Ballot Tuesday

Move to Overrule City Council,

Which Thwarted Two Referenda




We participated in a City Hall press conference Monday with Ronald Lauder, the term limits advocate and Michael Long, the state Conservative Party chair.

The purpose of the event was to express support for Question 1, which will be on the ballot Tuesday. The Charter Revision Commission was formed, in part, to revisit the issue of term limits after the City Council unilaterally extended the eligibility of city elected officials, primarily themselves, from two to three four-year terms.

This decision by the Council, made after intense lobbying by Mayor Bloomberg, eliminated a section of the Charter that had been added in 1993 as the result of a referendum largely funded by Mr. Lauder. Nonetheless, an election is no less valid because one side has spent more than the other, nor does a contest necessarily go the biggest spender.

In the Republican mayoral primary in 1989, Mr. Lauder had competed with Rudy Giuliani for the Republican nomination to succeed Mayor Koch, who had lost his bid for a fourth term in a primary with David Dinkins. Giuliani won by a margin of 67-33, slightly better than two to one. Lauder spent $13 million on the race, the largest amount ever spent on a mayoral contest up until that time. Lauder ran a series of commercials attacking Giuliani which, while they did not benefit him, weakened Giuliani for the November contest against Dinkins, who won the mayoralty by a 47,080 vote margin (52%-48%).

Lauder's attacks on Giuliani were said to have been inspired by US Senator Alfonse D'Amato, who had a beef with Giuliani because after the Senator had approved Giuliani's appointment as U.S. Attorney by President Reagan in 1983, Giuliani proceeded to go after D'Amato and succeeded in sending his younger brother, Armand, to jail. Since anything Armand did was likely to have been in his brother’s interest, one can see that the prosecution was more than a shot across the bow.

Back to term limits.

With the 1993 referendum slated to take effect in 2001, the City Council Democrats put the term limits issue on the ballot again in 1996, seeking to extend the limit from two terms to three. This proposal, basically a compromise between a two-term limit and no limit at all, was rejected by the public by a 54-46 margin, a much closer contest than the 59-41 vote by which term limits had been adopted in 1993. At the time, it was suggested to Council Speaker Peter Vallone that the Council had the legal authority to change term limits on its own, but the Speaker decided that since the original limit had been imposed after a referendum, it was more appropriate for any change to be submitted to the people for approval.

Five years later, the original referendum took effect for the 2001 election, and thirty-six out of the fifty-one Councilmembers then sitting were ineligible to seek re-election. Among the departing members was Speaker Vallone, who ran for mayor instead. Vallone lost to Mark Green in the Democratic primary and Green lost to Mayor Bloomberg in the general election.

Vallone was succeeded in his Council seat by his son, Peter Vallone, Jr. The younger Vallone was re-elected in 2005, but would have been ineligible to seek a third term in 2009 if the Council had not overruled the referenda and extended term limits for all 59 elected city officials: 3 citywide, 5 borough presidents and 51 councilmembers.

Others newly elected in 2001 included Joel Rivera of the Bronx, who succeeded his father, Assemblyman Jose Rivera. Joel was elected majority leader of the Council at the age of 22 as part of the deal that made Gifford Miller the Speaker at 32. Helen Diane Foster (Bronx) followed her father, Rev. Wendell Foster, into the Council; Erik Martin Dilan (Brooklyn), followed his father, Martin Malave Dilan; and Yvette Clarke (Brooklyn) (elected to Congress in 2006) succeeded her mother, Councilmember Una S. T. Clarke.

Term limits do not override patrilineal or matrilineal descent. It is the voters who choose whether to ratify the accession of the heir. Because of gerrymandering, name recognition, obstacles to ballot access, the role of local political clubs in which the parent is usually influential, and years of mailings paid for by the city, the heir has an enormous advantage over his or her rival. The voters decide the outcome in the Democratic primary. No children of retiring incumbents have been defeated while trying to succeed a parent in the City Council.

At Monday's news conference, Ronald Lauder announced his support for the charter change submitted by the Charter Revision Commission, under which the limit would revert to two terms in 2021. While many, including Mayor Bloomberg, found the eleven-year delay to be ridiculous, it is still the only proposition before the voters that would nullify the Council's self-serving action in 2008.

If Question 1 is approved by the voters, efforts are likely to be made by good government forces to advance the effective date of the two-term limit to 2013, which means that no incumbents will be able to profit from the extension they gave themselves any more than they already have.

The proposal to be voted on next week is supported by Mayor Bloomberg, Public Advocate Bill de Blasio, Conservative leaders, liberals and reformers of many stripes. It is likely to receive editorial support, although one never knows.

It is opposed by those who feel there should be a longer limit, or no limit, on the number of times that public officials can stand for re-election. They argue that elections provide term limits imposed by the people. That claim is countered by the political reality that Council candidates are so unknown, so down-ballot and so underpublicized that the voters are deprived of an effective choice of candidates. Most New Yorkers do not know who their own Councilmember is.

Term limits are advocated to sweep out incumbents, remove career politicians, and give more people the chance to be elected to public office. Term limits are often opposed by incumbents, career public servants, and people who have already been elected to public office and want to retain their positions, salaries, pension eligibility, lulus, expense accounts, staffers and other perquisites of office.

The vote Tuesday is likely to be reduced somewhat by the fact that the Charter amendments will be printed on the back of the ballots (in small type), so voters will have to know enough to turn the ballot over to find the questions being asked. The dismissal yesterday of the executive director of the Board of Elections for alleged "insubordination" is not likely to speed the voting process next week.

Most newspapers have not yet made their recommendations, and people who are undecided will probably make up their minds in the next week, if they vote at all on the questions. There is another conflict because seven separate issues have been combined into a single Yes-No vote on Question 2.

The Charter Revision Commissioners say the Board of Elections told them this merger of issues was required for mechanical reasons in preparing the ballot so they had no choice. The Board of Elections denies this account, and now claims that they could accommodate a larger number of separate issues on the ballot.

The executive director of the Charter Commission, Lorna Goodman, is the former County Attorney of Nassau County and chief of the affirmative litigation division of the New York City Corporation Counsel's office. Her reputation for intelligence and integrity is high. She has been a lawyer in public service since 1976.

The 2010 Charter Commission, perhaps pressed for time, has taken halting steps toward reform. Their recommendations come nowhere near Mayor Bloomberg's aspiration to reorganize city government. Just as the Yankees have to wait until next year, so do our hopes for substantive change in the City Charter.

It could be desirable to support the minor improvements offered - although hardly anyone understands most of them - rather than end up with nothing to show for seven months' work by a generally praiseworthy Commission and its diligent chair, CUNY chancellor Matthew Goldstein, who told the story that when Mayor Bloomberg first asked him to chair the Commission, he thought to himself that he needed that like a lochenkopf. Later he relented, and took the unpaid job.

A thought: voters should not take out their justified anger and frustration with government by opposing, on principle, the legitimate, but limited, proposals that are being put before them, anachronistic as Question 1 may be.

Rule 29-P: "The perfect is the enemy of the good." So wrote Voltaire in 1764.

Drinking Sugar

Free Soda on Food Stamps

Challenged by Bloomberg,

Bottlers Play Race Card.



The proposal by Mayor Bloomberg and Governor Paterson that people receiving food stamps should no longer be able to use them to purchase sugared soft drinks, particularly soda, has drawn the inevitable controversy that accompanies public health innovations that are intended to change eating or drinking habits.

The attack from the libertarians is predictable: the government should not tell people what to eat. Nobody is telling anyone what to eat. Alcohol and tobacco cannot now be purchased with food stamps, although millions of people find those products extremely comfortable, enabling them to endure the vicissitudes of life.

No one would be barred from buying or drinking syrupy soda, although it has been shown to lead to obesity and diabetes. You just would not be able to spend taxpayer dollars to damage your health as well as pay for your treatment.

As one might expect, the American Beverage Association, a lobby of soft drink producers, is leading the charge against the proposal. The person who will decide the issue is nominally Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, previously best known for firing a subordinate based on a misleading fragment of a speech she made.

We do not know whether it was the Secretary's decision to fire Shirley Sherrod as Georgia State Director of Rural Development for the U.S. Department of Agriculture in July 2010, or whether her public dismissal came on orders from the White House. In either case, it is Vilsack’s task to assume the position of responsibility (Rule 20: That's why God made staff) for what turned out to be a blunder after officials viewed a tape of Sherrod’s complete remarks.

To get an idea of Mr. Vilsack's attitude, Edward-Isaac Dovere in City Hall, the newspaper, has quoted from a speech he made to the National Press Club:

"I think it is important for us to recognize that there is a difference between a sometimes food and everyday foods," Vilsack said then, emphasizing better teaching, but steering clear of endorsing changes to the tax code. "There are occasions when those sometimes foods are appropriate and okay. And we think the approach ought to be an educational approach and an incentive driven approach."

As a youngster might say in response to this official timidity, "Cluck. Cluck."

Of course, children are substantial consumers of soda drinks. They will face the health consequences later. The popular blog, Gothamist, has its own take on the subject: BLOOMBERG'S FOOD STAMP SODA BAN SEEMS DOA is the headline.

"The raging debate about whether Mayor Bloomberg should or shouldn't try to stop poor people from using food stamps on soda seems to be missing an important point: It's quite likely this is never going to happen, because it seems the United States Department of Agriculture lacks the authority to approve such a change. Federal law is very specific about what can and cannot be bought with food stamps, and any exemption from these guidelines would require Congressional approval. And since most politicians are in the pocket of the beverage industry, it looks like poor Joe Sixpack (of Jolt) will be buying soda with food stamps for the foreseeable future." You can click here to read the rest of the Gothamist article, which appears to be highly credible and well written.

Whether or not the exemption of sweetened soda from the list of eligible reimbursable foods has a chance of adoption -- and the odds are against it in today’s anti-government climate -- we kind of like it for its health benefits. Why should we taxpayers subsidize obesity and the medical costs that caring for diabetes would require? Why should kids be brought up on sugar water? At summer camp, we used to call it 'bug juice', because once a bug landed on it, the creature was either trapped or drowned, and simply lay on the surface of the Kool Aid, or the cheaper substitute that was being ladled out.

Some will call this the nanny state, an example of overweening government interference in people's private lives. The soft drink industry is said to be framing the debate as an attack on the poor, since they consume the most soda. It is recruiting minority politicians to oppose the ban, thus giving the old race card a new twist. Darren Dopp, whose former employer, Eliot Spitzer, was said to have lured the lad into errors, now says:

"This has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with a government that wants to tell poor people what they can eat and drink."

The line, "This has nothing to do with race," reminds us of "This has nothing to do with money", which generally means that the dispute has everything to do with money, rather than the tinsel with which that reality is being shrouded.

It is amusing to see the American Beverage Association beating the drum on behalf of the alleged interest of poor people, when their primary interest is in getting poor people to drink as much soda as their mothers can afford to buy. This proposal would make the mothers, not the taxpayers, the actual buyers.

There are cross currents on this issue, but the likelihood is that the lobbyists who dominate the Senate and House will prevail. After all, aren't they entitled to get what they pay for, as they did when Congress deregulated Wall Street over the years before the crash?

The Great Giveaway

Gargantuan Tower Approved

Two Blocks From King Kong



The Sunday Times carried dueling quotes on the City Council's decision to upzone an entire block of mid-Manhattan so that a new office tower, over 1200 feet tall (just 30 feet short of the Empire State Building) could be built on the site of the Hotel Pennsylvania, opposite the underground railroad station.

The original Pennsylvania Station, an architectural treasure designed by McKim, Mead and White and completed in 1910, was demolished in 1963 to make way for the nondescript office building numbered 2 Penn Plaza. The loss of Penn Station was the impetus for the creation of the city's Landmarks Preservation Commission in 1965, Mayor Wagner's last year in office.

The Times quote in support of the proposed tower came from Mitchell L. Moss, a policy adviser to Mayor Bloomberg: "People don't come to New York to visit caves. They want the views, the height, the experience of tall buildings. Skyscrapers allow us to make the best use of a limited amount of land."

The opposition quote was a snippet from my testimony at the public hearing on the matter, in which I called the proposed 15 Penn Plaza: "An assault on the Empire State Building and the New York City skyline."

The subject deserves more attention than that fragment of a sentence. We write today to explain why we are opposed to the package of variances granted for this behemoth of a building.

At the hearing of the Council's Zoning Subcommittee on August 23, one issue was whether the new tower would block views of the famous and iconic Empire State Building, which is just two blocks from the proposed tower. Very different photoshopped maps were displayed to show that the new building would, or would not, block the view of the Empire State, which was compared at the meeting to the Eiffel Tower. In fact, the tower would significantly impair view of the Empire State from the west, including New Jersey, and would slightly detract from the view of the building from other directions. Vice versa, of course, with regard to the view from the skyscraper's observation deck.

Yet the skyline of New York City is ever-changing, and as generations of New Yorkers know, your view lasts as long as the owner of the lot next door allows. Property owners can build as of right on their land, consistent with zoning codes and city regulations.

In this case, however, the proposed tower was far outside the zoning codes, and required five separate changes in the law to give the developer the height and bulk of the building that he wanted to erect. That is why the Community Board and the City Council were involved under the city's Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (sometimes affectionately called ULURP).

If it is built, the proposed Penn Tower would have 56% more bulk than the zoning code would have permitted without discretionary bonuses. That comes out to almost a million square feet of additional office space. The variances granted to the developer also eliminate the setback regulations typically required for buildings of this size, thereby aggravating the impact upon the skyline from the perspective of New Jersey. The glare from night lighting of the financial tenants will further impact the view of the iconic Empire State Building from the east.

The first agency to weigh in on the project was Community Board 5, which represents midtown residents and businesses. Some community boards are viscerally anti-development, worshipping existing land use even if they had condemned the architecture of the buildings they later came to treasure (e.g. the Huntington Hartford Gallery). Board 5, however, is generally sympathetic to development and reflects the moderate views of its upscale community.

The Board held two public hearings and voted to oppose the project, 36 to 1, which is, for a community board, an overwhelming margin. They did not act at the behest of rival developers or NIMBY (not in my back yard) devotees. Board Five stated its objections on June 11 in a letter to Amanda Burden, chair of the City Planning Commission. Read their letter:

"The Board does not oppose this project per se. However, we have serious concerns about the building's proposed size, possible only through the granting of special permits, in an application that offers few public benefits in exchange.

"First, in exchange for a 20% transit bonus, the applicant's proposal includes the restoration and reopening of the Gimbel's Passageway plus various other access and egress improvements, all of which we applaud. But as we note in our resolution, some of these improvements are either self-serving or mandated, and thus not sufficient for the 474,000 square feet received in exchange.

"Second, Community Board Five is deeply troubled by this application's request for midblock up-zoning (from a C6-4.5 to a C6-6) adding another 266,000 square feet to an application that lacks many confirmed details, including building size, height, tenancy, construction timetable or financing plans. The applicant conceded to us that it could be many years before any development scenario might move forward. Yet if granted, the upzoining would be permanent and remain with the zoning lot regardless of future development plans or even if the lot were to be sold.

"Third, we ask that the Commission evaluate this application from the perspective of consistency. The Commission recently considered the Jean Nouvel/MoMA building, and despite noting the proposed building's exemplary design and the lasting benefits that this project would generate for landmarks and cultural institutions, it voted to reduce its size due to its impacts on the city skyline and the surrounding neighborhood.

"In comparison, the 15 Penn Plaza application wholly lacks the MoMA project's distinguished architectural features, produces no benefits for landmark preservation or cultural access, would have similarly detrimental impacts on neighborhood density and traffic, and would notably diminish, not enhance, the skyline position of its iconic neighbor, the Empire State Building.

"Indeed, the proposed buildings would directly obstruct the view of the Empire State Building from the west, thereby fundamentally altering and diminishing New York City's skyline in a way few projects have in decades. Should 15 Penn Plaza not be held to the same standards and criteria as Nouvel/MoMA?"

After the City Council approved the tower 47 to 1 on August 26, Vikki Barbero, the chair of Board 5, made the following penetrating comments:

"The ULURP process has ended and the Council has made its final determination. We remain distressed and dismayed, however, by the level of discussion and debate both in the media and at the Council.

"The issue before the Council was not principally about women and minority employment, as important as this issue continues to be in all job areas. Yet, if you were present for the Council debate you would have thought it was at the heart of the matter being voted on. The issue before the Council was not about a battle between two major real estate developers, as many press reports made it out.

"The issue before the Council was not about the need to foster jobs during this bad economic climate, for even the developer admits they won't be building for years to come. Yet, a number of our political leaders used that bogus argument as an excuse to support the project.

"And the issue before the Council was certainly not about sticking it to the Empire State Building because it failed to light up for Mother Teresa.

"The issue before the City and the Council was, in fact, about far more than just one project on one block of midtown Manhattan. It was about giving strategic and prudent oversight to a section of our city - the area around Penn Station - that is about to undergo significant change.

"The City has created the Moynihan Station sub-district precisely because this area of midtown is poised for major development -- and the City has a responsibility to prepare for it, to be thoughtful about it, and to set the parameters for it.

"One development should not be permitted to set a bad precedent for the next, as we believe this one does by upzoning an entire block without a rationale and with limited resultant public benefit. A city as dense as ours, with so many competing interests, needs to thoughtfully and inclusively plan for its future and not let one wealthy and powerful developer override that process.

"That was the debate that was entirely missing this week both in most of the media and, even worse, at the City Council. We were disheartened and discouraged by its absence."

NEW YORK CIVIC OBSERVES

Ms. Barbero is spot on. She and district manager Wally Rubin meet the highest standards of civic engagement. On this one, the CPC was clearly in the tank, abandoning its customary guardianship and attention to size, taste and design in its eagerness to approve the tower.

We believe that what happened in this case is a textbook example of unsound public policy, favoritism to a particular extremely well-connected developer, and lack of regard for the future of the commercial neighborhood around Penn and Moynihan Stations. To grant a massive upgrade to a property owner with no tenant, no financing and no immediate plans to build is premature and irresponsible. These valuable new rights will be for sale along with the property if the developer is unable or unwilling to build on the site.

Much attention has been paid to the Aqueduct racino and the unwholesome process used by the State of New York to select a developer. In this case, there is only one corporate developer. It is the value of the property, however, that is being changed by law to suit his particular demands. No one less well connected than the Vornado Realty Trust (owner of numerous major properties, including Bloomberg Tower) could play the system with such success and gain an unprecedented blank check for possible future development.

This is a case of the city making an extraordinary gift, probably worth hundreds of millions of dollars, to one of its richest and most influential developers. It is a top-down decision, clearly made at City Hall and not by the Planning Commission, which should have been embarrassed at the tricks they had to turn.

The point we make today was best expressed in 1764 in an insightful quatrain, which we have occasionally quoted when we believe it is relevant:

"The law doth punish man or woman
That steals the goose from off the common,
But lets the greater felon loose
That steals the common from the goose."

New York City is replete with nonprofits, do-gooders, investigative reporters, and ambitious elected officials. Which, if any, of these guardians of the public interest will speak out on this issue, on either side? We will listen and report to you.

It is commonplace to denounce the bungling, self-serving scoundrels of Albany, who are a continuing embarrassment to the State of New York. But what does one say for municipal decision makers when their motive is not corrupt, but uncaring reliance upon the paternal supposition that money knows best.

Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied

Commission Delays Two-Term Limit

For City Officials Until A.D. 2021,

However the Public Votes This Year


The Charter Revision Commission appointed by Mayor Bloomberg voted last night to postpone by eleven years the effective date when a two-term limit would take effect, even if the voters approve it in referendum this fall.

After a motion to put the eight-year limit into effect now was defeated, (it received six votes, eight being needed to pass), and a so-called 'hybrid' motion for a 2017 effective date also failed with six votes, Commission Chairman Matthew Goldstein brought the 2021 date up for a vote and it was approved 12-0, although it was not a compromise between the other two alternatives, but mandated an even longer delay in carrying out the decision made in the public referendum.

On the two previous motions, the chairman had called the roll and voted last. On the 2021 proposal he called on himself first and dramatically voted 'Yes'. The eleven other members present followed suit.

A large majority of the witnesses who testified last night supported implementation of the referendum at the next Council election, scheduled for 2013. The speaker for a delay was Public Advocate Bill de Blasio, who had taken a leading role in supporting the two-term limit in 2008. He did not explain why he changed his mind, but as a mayoral candidate in 2013, he will be seeking support from the legislators whose eligibility he sought to prolong.

The effect of this postponement is to confer a benefit on a small group of Councilmembers, some of whom voted in 2008 to extend their eligibility. Others, who voted No on the change, allegedly on principle, will also have the opportunity to seek a third term, and it is likely that most of them will avail themselves of that privilege. The extension to 2021 will give the freshmen, now in their first year on the Council, the right to serve twelve years before there will be an open seat..

The rationale behind this gift of time is that, since in 2009 the three-term limit was in effect, the candidates ran with the expectation that they would be entitled to seek three terms and the city is in good faith bound to honor their belief. Those members first elected in 2005 would require the gift of a third term to have them serve into 2017. However, the public will presumably by 2010 have voted three times (1993 and 1996 were the first two) for a two-term limit.

The theory that there is a duty to fulfill the expectations of the ambitious appears as harebrained to me as it may sound to you, but it was expressed by at least one Commissioner last night, and it was the rationalization of others. Try to think of another justification for prolonging the implementation of the decision of the voters for a period comparable to serious prison time.

The fact is that, even if the voters approve a two-term limit in November, the Commission has arrogated to itself the power to frustrate that decision for eleven years. The proposal was offered to allow the public to decide the effective date of the two-term limit, whether at once (2013), 2017 or 2021. This idea was ignored; how can the people be trusted to make a decision of such magnitude? Don't the mayoral appointees on the Commission know what is best for the masses?

The individual members of the Commission are, by and large, reasonably intelligent, not particularly politically sophisticated, and honorable New Yorkers. The chair is a distinguished public servant. How could all these bright people have gone so wrong? Look at Vietnam and numerous situations since then when our country has made decisions which turned out to be wrong. But those important issues had two sides and complicated facts. In this case, the facts are clear and the argument completely one-sided. I invite anyone to submit a column explaining why 2017 or 2021 is the appropriate time for a 2010 referendum to take effect. We'll publish it.

The bottom line here is that some people wanted to take care of some other people they know. And they were able to convince enough naive colleagues so that they could do it.

The remedy here is relatively simple: another referendum, with an effective date written into it so no Commission can substitute its wishes for the voters' decision by fiddling with implementation and postponing a simple reform for over a decade.

The unanswered question is Rule 17-C. Who will bell the cat? Who will step forward and take the initiative to see that the will of the people is implemented, whatever it may be. Now is the time to begin consideration of that question. It has been attributed to Edmund Burke in 1795. No one, however, really knows who said it first: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good [people] to do nothing."

To those of you who think, what difference does this make, two terms or three, you have a point. The issue, however, is not two or three terms. The issue is fairness; first the Mayor and Council circumventing the Charter in 2008 for their own benefit, and now the Commission trying to circumvent the referendum of 2010, whether they know it or not.

Americans, and New Yorkers are Americans, like to play fair, and don't like to be disregarded or manipulated. That is what underlies this controversy. It is the same nagging issue that sharply reduced the majority the competent mayor should have received after two successful terms. Our recommendation: respect the will of the people.

"Justice Delayed is Justice Denied". Britain's Prime Minister Gladstone said it in 1868 addressing Parliament as Queen Victoria's prime minister.

The City of New York should not provide golden parachutes. Not in dollars, not in years. Let the new elected officials take their places, and may they serve the public, not themselves.

Eleven Years A-Waiting

The Charter Revision Commission, appointed by Mayor Bloomberg on March 3 to recommend changes in the City Charter, has brought forth its recommendations. In order to appear on the November ballot, the changes must be submitted to the City Clerk sixty days prior to the election. This year that date is September 3.

The principal purpose of the Commission was to give the people a chance to vote on term limits for elected officials. In a referendum in 1993, the voters approved a charter amendment limiting city officials to two consecutive elective terms, usually eight years. In 1996, the voters affirmed their earlier decision, rejecting an alternative limit of three terms.

The Charter change was made effective in 2001, at which time a large majority of Council seats turned over. New members were elected, who under the law could serve for no more than two terms. If not for the Charter changes approved by the voters, most of the old councilmembers would have been re-elected and the new members would not have run. In fact, eight of the newly elected were relatives of their predecessors, dynastic succession not being prohibited by the Charter.

In 2008, the elected officials who would have been ineligible to seek re-election the next year decided that their services would be needed for many years to come. At the urging of the mayor, who said his leadership was required because of the impending fiscal crisis, the Council voted, 29 - 22, to override the two referenda and extend their own eligibility for an additional four years. This decision was upheld in court.

Public dissatisfaction with this maneuver was demonstrated by the unprecedented defeat of five councilmembers in districts where re-election had usually been automatic. The narrow margin of Mayor Bloomberg's victory over his opponent was attributed more to voter dissatisfaction over the manipulation of the Charter than to complaints about his administration of the city, which was widely regarded as satisfactory.

During the campaign, Mayor Bloomberg promised to appoint a Charter Commission to review the city's governmental structure and, specifically, to address the issue of term limits. He had previously promised to appoint such a commission in 2008, but in the press of business found it impossible to adhere to that commitment. This time, with the third term under his belt, he did appoint a commission, which is making recommendations to be placed on the ballot in 2010.

The Commission consisted of 15 members, led by the widely respected chancellor of the City University, Dr. Matthew Goldstein. Its most important recommendation had been predicted, to give the voters another chance to vote on term limits. Another was to forbid the Council to vote to overrule the voters to extend their own eligibility. This was the public locking of the barn door, after the third term horse was stolen in 2008. That was the proper and appropriate thing for the Commission to do. It should have been provided for in the initial referenda, but Ronald Lauder's lawyers overlooked it, perhaps because they believed that no one would have the nerve to throttle a decision made in a democratic process involving a million voters. If they believed that, they were mistaken.

Having made the inevitable decision to submit the issue once again to the public (that, after all, was why they were appointed in the first place), the Commission then proceeded to commit the inexplicable blunder of not making its decision effective until 2021, which is eleven years into the future. Councilmembers elected in 2005 and 2009 would be eligible to seek a third term, and the two term limit would not become effective until the members to be elected in 2013 took their seats.

If the people are to regain the right to limit Councilmembers' terms, their decision should be put into effect at the next Council election, which may be in 2011 or 2013, depending on when census data is reported. The eight year delay appears to be an attempt to subvert the Commission's own decision, which its members may not have been too happy to make, some of them being creatures of the comfortable establishment, quite content to see members linger in office until they are thoroughly superannuated.

Some of this is hard to understand. If a matter is submitted to referendum, as this issue will be in 2010, the decision of the people, whatever it may be, should go into effect as soon as possible. If the matter involves eligibility for election, it should go into effect for the election immediately following the referendum. The eight-year delay in ineligibility, not allowing it to go into effect until 2021, makes no sense. First, it is an invitation to change the charter again within the next ten years, to repeal or to further extend term limits. Second, it unjustly allows incumbents to seek third terms when the people have again rejected such privilege for a handful of office holders. Third, at the very least, the public should have the opportunity to vote on whether the charter change goes into effect at the next election or not until 2021.

The right to decide this issue was snatched from the public by the 2008 self-perpetuating dance of the incumbents. The proposed charter change restores that right to the people. It is a normal expectation for charter changes to go into effect as soon as practicable. Whether the effective date of this restoration of voting rights should be delayed by ten years is a separate issue which the public has a right to decide.

The Charter Commission has generally done good work, and its members have served long hours without pay. We do not suggest that they are corrupt or derelict in their responsibilities. But the ten year delay in implementing the public's decision on term limits is inexplicable. It suggests an imperialist power agreeing to grant independence to a colony in ten years, by which time the natives may be expected to learn how to govern themselves.

Such a time-consuming process is not only unnecessary but insulting to the public. If we are capable of deciding how many terms our elected officials can serve, we are capable of deciding, if we choose to, that our wishes shall go into effect at the next election for Councilmembers, not a decade into the future.

There is still time for the commission to correct what appears to be a manifest error. We hope they do so, in order for the voters to make their decision effective, whatever it may be. It will require leadership by the Chair and farsighted commissioners to modify the mandatory ten-year delay. Otherwise, the cause of the rule of law and returning the decision on term limits to the voters will have been subverted. That would lead to a loss of confidence in the commission and the important issues it is expected to consider in 2011.

Do the right thing.

Apartment of Mental Health

City Budget: Agreement:

State Issues: Unresolved

Court Decision to Raise

Mental Health Expense

Day 86 without a budget.

86 - to ignore, cancel or get rid of, with prejudice; 86 - atomic number of radon, working our way up to uranium, which is 92. (July 1)

Mayor Bloomberg and the City Council agreed amicably on a budget last night after several days of intensifying negotiations. The Times reported on the process in a story by Javier C. Hernandez on pA25, headed straightforwardly, CITY COUNCIL AND MAYOR REACH ACCORD ON A BUDGET. The first two grafs:

"Faced with a sputtering economy and uncertainty in Albany, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and the City Council agreed Thursday night on a $63 billion budget that would slash at least 2,000 jobs but increase no taxes.

"The deal would mean painful cuts in a variety of city services, including the elimination of some senior centers and day care programs, and less money for education and adult literacy programs. But over all, spending would increase by $3.6 billion, or about 6 per cent, compared with the budget approved a year ago, because of rising pension and health care costs."

Note the contrast between the state and the city when it comes to the budget process. Here are some reasons the city did better:

1. Strong, consistent leadership by the elected executive and his experienced professional staff.

2. A relatively responsible, hierarchical but functioning unicameral legislature.

3. The absence of a $10 billion deficit, due to the mayor's putting money aside during the boom years rather than spending every cent that was available.

4. The willingness of unions to make adjustments in staffing to avoid layoffs of their members and closing of facilities.

5. The absence of diversions such as investigations and indictments in the executive and legislative branches.

6. The relatively lesser strength of lobbyists in influencing city government.

One depressing aspect of the municipal budget is that despite the layoffs, attrition and other reductions, total spending still rose substantially ($3.6 billion) because of mandated increasing costs for pensions and health benefits. These areas must be dealt with if the city and state are to emerge from the chronic budgetary imbalance they have suffered from for years. Some day, the pension system will have to go from defined benefit to defined contribution, as the great majority of pension plans already are.

Almost by coincidence, there is another story in today's Times, just two pages later, that describes a court decision which, if upheld as it is likely to be, will have a considerable financial impact every year on the New York State budget. The decision is reported by A.G. Sulzberger on pA27. The head: US APPEALS COURT LIFTS STAY ON RELOCATIING MENTALLY ILL. The lede:

"A federal appeals court has ruled that New York State must comply with a lower court's order to begin immediately transferring thousands of people with mental illness in New York City out of large, institutional group homes and into their own homes and apartments, where they will continue to receive specialized treatment and services."

The story quotes the executive directors of two advocacy organizations. It closes with a senior citizen adult home resident who said: "I'd be better off in a studio or one-bedroom. Once you get here, you sort of get stuck here." Earlier in the story, a spokesman for Gov. David A. Paterson, said that "the state, wrestling with severe budget deficits, was in the process of determining its next steps." The article does not identify the two judges on the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit who made the decision. They are Pierre N. Leval and Debra Ann Livingston. Judge Leval, a senior judge, is held in particularly high regard. Judge Livingston, an appointee of President George W. Bush, was confirmed in 2007. She was Vice Dean of Columbia Law School from 2005 to 2006.

This case is a classic example of the unfunded mandates which make it impossible for state executives or legislators to balance budgets. It may well be beneficial for many people with mental illness to have their own apartments with visits from case management services, psychiatrists and nurses, as the plan would require. Others may do better in group homes. Much depends on the quality of the group home.

There is no question that this mandate will be expensive to fulfill. Nor is there any question that the state is severely financially stressed, and that it would be extremely difficult to incur additional expenditures. Nor is there any limit on the level of service that the Federal courts would eventually require for individuals who have mental problems.

There are fiscal consequences to every new law and regulation, and some legislatures have rules that these consequences must be calculated and stated. No such rule applies to court decisions, which are often made without regard to how the decrees will be paid for (except for tobacco companies). Nor is it considered what or other services may be adversely affected by additional expense incurred in this area.

We recommend that you read today's Times article in full here. Are humanitarianism and fiscal responsibility inconsistent? How should judgments be made when these objectives are in conflict? Does the fiscal condition of the state have any relevance when the needs or desires of persons with disabilities are considered?

Californians Rebuff Parties

California Voters
Approve 'Top Two'
Primary Elections
Both Parties Fought

Day 72 without a budget.

While paralysis prevails in the highly partisan scene in Albany, we cross the continent to California to report good news for independent and moderate voters.

By a convincing margin of 54 to 46 per cent, Californians approved Proposition 14, which mandates non-partisan elections in the nation's most populous state, starting in 2011. Under the Golden State's new plan - sometimes called the "Top Two" system - all voters would receive the same primary election ballot for nearly every elective office except for President. Candidates would be given the option to self-identify with a political party on the ballot or to leave that space blank. The two candidates receiving the greatest number of votes in the primary would then appear on the general election ballot regardless of party.

Prop. 14 was supported by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Lieutenant Governor Abel Maldonado. It was opposed by most elected officials in the state. Out of 58 counties in California, the Proposition carried 56. It lost only two counties, Orange, considered right-wing, and San Francisco, considered left-wing.

For those New Yorkers for whom the adoption of nonpartisan elections appears impossible, take note that 21 of the 25 largest cities in the United States currently have some system of nonpartisan voting in local elections, including Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Boston, and Seattle.

Mayor Bloomberg has advocated nonpartisan elections since he was elected in 2001. In a referendum in 2003, New York City voters defeated a proposal for nonpartisan elections, 70 to 30 per cent. The issue has not been submitted to the voters since, nor has the City Council taken it onto itself to overrule the vote of the people.

Francis Barry describes the history of nonpartisan elections in "The Scandal of Reform" (2009). New York's 2003 referendum proposed "hybrid" nonpartisan elections, allowing candidates, if they wished, to identify themselves by party, similar to the system just passed by California, and those already in use in Jacksonville, Florida and the states of Louisiana and Washington. The current Charter Revision Commission, chaired by CUNY Chancellor Matthew Goldstein, will consider placing some form of nonpartisan elections once again on the ballot. If they do so, 2010 would be a better year than 2011 because there will be a larger turnout when state-wide offices, the Senate and Congress are on the ballot. 2011 is the off-year in the quadrennial election cycle.
Nonpartisan elections would erode but not eliminate the influence of political parties, which are basically hierarchical, self-serving aggregations of mostly decent, honorable people, led by others whose motivations may not be so pure. Political parties are often controlled by powerful leaders, called bosses.

As in military, religious, or criminal organizations, the person at the top can exert enormous influence over the decisions of the group, which the members must respect if they want to remain in good standing in the organization and eventually rise to power themselves. Faithful members of political clubs are often rewarded for their service by nomination to public office, including the judiciary. When that happens, judges can show their appreciation for their positions by responsiveness to the political leaders who selected them for the bench.

There are benefits to parties. They can unite people in support of a common program. They can defend and protect their communities from dangers, real or imagined. Parties are protected by freedom of assembly and association; voters have a right to join any legitimate group they support.

The main problem with political parties, however, lies in the power of their leaders to select candidates for public office. In one-party areas, which constitute the majority of legislative districts in New York City, the candidate selected by the dominant party is almost automatically elected. In turn, the elected candidates tend to bear unwavering allegiance to the party officials who put them in office. The interests of these officials are often not the interests of the general public, but the interests of lobbyists and contributors to the party, or to the individual who was so helpful.

Historically, the party system has led to corrupt political machines under leaders like Bosses Tweed, Kelly, Sullivan, Croker, Murphy and most recently Carmine De Sapio, who was overthrown in 1961, by which time, through a reform DeSapio, to his credit, sponsored, district leaders were subject to direct election. Previously, district leaders were elected by county committee members, who were generally political apparatchiks at the lowest rung of the ladder. Insurgencies were much more difficult to mount.

Political machines were also powerful in the suburbs, where the Nassau County Republican organization once ruled, and in New Jersey, where Boss Frank Hague ruled Jersey City as mayor from 1917 to 1947. His enduring contribution to political thought was the phrase, "I am the law", which at the time was not inaccurate. In some rural and urban areas, political parties are strong enough to control local governments, a practice similar to the warlords who control portions of some foreign countries.

Party primaries, closed to independents and non-members of the party holding the primary, encourage racism and extremism by the candidates and polarization of the electorate. Candidates hew to the right or the left to win primary voters, who are often more intense in their ideological views than less active members of the party.

To appeal to this base, one risks alienating the midstream. This requires a change of message between the primary and the general election. It is hard to discern, after all this, what the candidate really believes in, if anything, apart from his/her own election. Moderate or centrist candidates are particularly disadvantaged by closed primaries, since a disproportionate number of their supporters are ineligible to vote.

Opponents of Proposition 14, which include the heads of both major parties in California and many third-party devotees, have vowed to sue in order to prevent the referendum from taking effect, but their efforts are unlikely to succeed if precedent is to be followed by the Supreme Court of the United States.

In 2008, in a 7-2 decision, with Justices Scalia and Kennedy dissenting, the Supreme Court upheld a similar nonpartisan electoral system passed by the voters of Washington state. Writing for the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas said that overturning Washington’s system would have been an "extraordinary and precipitous nullification of the will of the people."

The Constitution of the State of California allows Initiative and Recall elections. That is how Governor Schwarzenegger was elected. New York State gives the voters no such opportunity. Even when vacancies occur, they are filled by the legislature and not by the electorate. We have a long way to go.