“Now, though, the tables may be turned on the drugmaker, which wants to revamp a 15-acre site in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, where until recently it operated a plant for more than a century. A local assemblyman isn’t content with Pfizer’s plans to sell the property to a private developer, who would replace the plant with mixed-use development that the drugmaker maintains will include affordable housing. Vito Lopez, however, wants to use eminent domain – of all things – to seize the property, because he doesn’t believe enough, if any truly affordable housing will be created.”

While mayor Bloomberg and many city agencies are actively trying to reduce the problems caused by private vehicles in the heart of Manhattan, fund improvements in mass transit and provide affordable housing; city mandated policies in the outer boroughs promote driving and car ownership by requiring building owners to build parking garages even in areas reasonably well served by mass transit.

The Times ran this OP -Ed in January

“But off-street parking requirements have themselves become an expensive problem: developers must devote money and space to parking lots and garages, or not build at all. This limits the supply of housing, retail and office space, creating higher rents for residents and businesses, and higher prices for consumer goods.

Like any market distortion, parking requirements have created their own set of absurd choices. For example, affordable housing developers looking to build in most parts of New York outside of Manhattan must either provide parking that their target market can’t use, forgo construction altogether or change their mission and construct fewer apartments for higher income tenants.” (Which is what usually happens)

Streetsblog has pointed out the harmful effects of these policies, on recent construction along 4th Ave in Brooklyn in which a line of new condos are being built with ground floor parking instead of stores. The city is even dumb enough to be trying force parking minimums in a vital area like Hells Kitchen in the heart of its congestion pricing zone!! The result is often that the city government is force feeding cars into areas against the will of many local residents.

One such area is Atlantic Yards, in which at least 4000 parking spaces will be put in with over 2000 required for residents in spite of the fact that the site is a major transit hub served my multiple subway lines and the Long Island Railroad. Many of these will come in the form of hugely expensive and potentially dangerous underground parking. Doesn’t anyone remember the first World Trade Center attack which thankfully did not involve plastic explosives?

“Last year, several commentators on the Atlantic Yards Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) questioned the provision of parking–not just interim surface lots, but also the 2570 underground spaces intended for the project’s residential component and an additional 1100 underground spaces for the arena.”

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

A third and perhaps more transformative winner would be Ron Paul who could still show up as a third party candidate. We are now in the very sad situation, in which the only person likely to have been recognized by the founders as a true liberal and the only one who seriously seems interested in obeying the constitution is now a fringe candidate. This also seems to mark the tragic end of the Republican Party as a major defender of human liberty. They now defend waterboarding.

John C. Frémont ran as the first Republican nominee for President in 1856, using the political slogan: “Free soil, free labor, free speech, free men, Frémont.” Although Frémont’s bid was unsuccessful, the party showed a strong base. It dominated in New England, New York and the northern Midwest, and had a strong presence in the rest of the North. It had almost no support in the South, where it was roundly denounced in 1856-60 as a divisive force that threatened civil war. The election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860 ended the domination of the fragile coalition of pro-slavery southern Democrats and conciliatory northern Democrats which had existed since the days of Andrew Jackson. Instead, a new era of Republican dominance based in the industrial and agricultural north ensued. Republicans still often refer to their party as the “party of Lincoln” in honor of the first Republican President.

I guess it’s nicer that the boot kicking in my door or stepping on my throat might have nice heels or be on a different colored foot but I doubt it’s gonna feel any better. Watching contemporary politics is like being in a crowded bar watching a gang of drunks fighting over a gun. Every year it seems like the gun (government power) gets bigger causing the fighting to grab it to become more and more desperate. The original, highly revolutionary concept of the U.S. Constitution was promote peace by limiting the size of the gun and strictly limiting how it could be used.

Callifornia has nearly destroyed the planet and given the world a lot of crap but if this catches on–ALL WILL BE FORGIVEN.

I liked the fact that they started things off with a quote from Niccolo Macciavelli which grasps the heart of the issue which is that any system, no matter how bad creates a constituency of people who have adapted to it and have learned to benefit from it while the proponent of change stands alone offering hypothetical benefits in an imagined future.. The authors advocate the idea of splitting any cash gained from congestion pricing and road tolling directly with the communities through which the roads go through to use as they please. These pots of money may well attract support. They also make a powerful social justice argument that the areas which bear the high negative social and health affects of major highways cutting through them should receive something back. They also point out the negative potential results of just plowing all the money from road tolling back into a “highway slush fund” which might very well result in the construction of even more roads in low density areas and compound the traffic/sprawl problem.

There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old order of things, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new.

NICCOLO MACHIAVELLI

“We propose a new way to create political support for congestion pricing on urban freeways: distribute the toll revenue to cities with the tolled freeways. With the revenue as a prize, local elected officials can become the political champions of congestion pricing. For these officials, the political benefits of the toll revenue can be far greater than the political costs of supporting congestion pricing. If congestion tolls were charged on all the freeways in Los Angeles County, for example, and the revenue were returned to the 66 cities traversed by those freeways, we estimate (using a model first developed by Elizabeth Deakin and Greig Harvey) that each city would receive almost $500 per capita per year.”

Here they get at the core political problem.

“Congestion pricing lacks a constituency that derives concentrated benefits from priced roads, a group whose gains greatly outweigh its losses, and who can be certain before the fact that pricing will be to it’s advantage.Without this constituency, congestion pricing has few strong advocates–people or groups willing to spend time, money, and political capital to make pricing a reality. Congestion pricing may well be in the public interest, but right now it is no one’s special interest.”

“Hypocrisy (or being a hypocrite) is the act of pretending to oppose a belief or behaviour while holding the same beliefs or behaviours at the same time.”

If you want to get expelled use this example which I found on Streetsblog.

Resolution on Protecting the Environment — Reducing Dependence on Fossil Fuels

Whereas, it is a well established scientific fact that greenhouse gas emissions cause global warming, resulting in great dangers to our environment; and…

Whereas, the use of fossil fuels such as oil and coal results in greenhouse gas emissions; and

Whereas, little is being done in the U.S. to reduce the use of fossil fuels and develop alternative energy sources; therefore be it

Resolved, that as an important first step to reduce the use of fossil fuels and lessen dependence on foreign oil we urge the adoption of a meaningful increase in fuel efficiency standards to 35 miles per gallon or higher for vehicles; and be if [sic] further

Resolved, that other steps be taken to reduce the use of fossil fuels and lessen dependence on foreign oil including the requirement that utilities generate at least 15% of their electricity from renewable energy sources; and be it further

Resolved, that the nation reward the development of alternative energy sources such as bio fuels and solar power, which would help free the U.S. from imported oil which amounts to 60% of the oil consumed in our country.

And Here’s THE More Recent Resolution

Resolution Opposing Any Reduction in Parking Permit [sic]

WHEREAS, many New York City public schools are difficult to reach by public transportation, many teachers travel between schools, and most schools do not provide off street parking for staff so that educators need to rely on street parking; and

WHEREAS, educators receive parking permits from the Department of Education that enable them to park on a portion of their school block during school hours only; and

WHEREAS, these permits, unlike Department of Transportation Permits, do not allow holders to ignore meter or no parking zone or alternate side regulations; and

WHEREAS, on numerous occasions the UFT has raised the need for more parking for teachers and has been told by the city and DOE that this is an economic bargaining issue; and

WHEREAS, the City has recently announced a plan to reduce the number of parking permits for all city employees by 20 percent; and

WHEREAS, available parking is clearly an incentive to attract teachers to high-needs schools, and rescinding permits at a time when we’re making strides to attract the best and brightest to teaching in the city makes no sense; therefore be it

RESOLVED, that the UFT urge Mayor Bloomberg and Chancellor Joel Klein to exempt UFT members from any reduction in parking permits; and

RESOLVED, that we call on the Mayor and Chancellor to join with the UFT to look for ways to increase the number of both parking permits and parking spaces for educators.

This lesson will be vital if you want a career in politics.

Chanel Thirteen recently showed the American Experience documentary on the construction of Grand Central, a huge project largely funded through land development by the New York Central Railroad. A core problem at work here is that a government agency neither has the skills or more importantly the financial incentive (it’s not their money) to run the numbers properly and think about these projects in a business like way. Hong Kong’s awesome transit infrastructure is funded by a private company that also acts as a land developer.

The first one is Richard Brodsky, a NY state assemblyman representing Westchester county. He claims concern for the lower income residents who will be hurt by the plan,in spite of the fact that this is a group most likely to be dependent on public transportation. A look at the constituency he represents gives a clue to who he is really defending.

“Richard Brodsky (b. 1946) represents District 92 in the New York State Assembly, which includes the towns of Greenburgh and Mount Pleasant, the villages of Ardsley, Elmsford, Dobbs Ferry, Hastings-on-Hudson, Irvington, Tarrytown, as well as parts of Briarcliff and Yonkers, among other communities located in Westchester County, New York.”

Mount Pleasant: The median income for a household in the town was $81,072, and the median income for a family was $96,403. Males had a median income of $60,761 versus $41,023 for females. The per capita income for the town was $35,468. About 2.6% of families and 4.9% of the population were below the poverty line, including 4.2% of those under age 18 and 3.5% of those age 65 or over.

Ardsley :The median income for a household in the village was $105,293, and the median income for a family was $116,239. Males had a median income of $78,012 versus $57,216 for females. The per capita income for the village was $47,086. About 0.4% of families and 1.3% of the population were below the poverty line, including 0.4% of those under age 18 and 3.8% of those age 65 or over.

Elmsford: The median income for a household in the village was $61,685, and the median income for a family was $71,630. Males had a median income of $42,500 versus $38,583 for females. The per capita income for the village was $28,791. About 6.7% of families and 9.3% of the population were below the poverty line, including 12.9% of those under age 18 and 11.6% of those age 65 or over.

Dobbs Ferry: The median income for a household in the village was $70,333, and the median income for a family was $93,127. Males had a median income of $65,532 versus $50,091 for females. The per capita income for the village was $35,090. About 1.8% of families and 5.6% of the population were below the poverty line, including 4.8% of those under age 18 and 7.2% of those age 65 or over.

Hastings-on-Hudson:The median income for a household in the village was $83,188, and the median income for a family was $111,227. Males had a median income of $76,789 versus $50,702 for females. The per capita income for the village was $48,914. About 1.5% of families and 3.5% of the population were below the poverty line, including 2.7% of those under age 18 and 1.9% of those age 65 or over.

Irvington: The median income for a household in the village was $96,467, and the median income for a family was $120,895. Males had a median income of $85,708 versus $50,714 for females. The per capita income for the village was $93,457. About 1.2% of families and 3.1% of the population were below the poverty line, including none of those under age 18 and 0.9% of those age 65 or over.

Tarrytown: The median income for a household in the village was $68,762, and the median income for a family was $82,445. Males had a median income of $61,699 versus $41,054 for females. The per capita income for the village was $39,472. About 1.8% of families and 4.7% of the population were below the poverty line, including 5.4% of those under age 18 and 4.6% of those age 65 or over.

He also represents part of

Briarcliff: The median income for a household in the village was $133,272, and the median income for a family was $157,607. Males had a median income of $100,000 versus $61,208 for females. The per capita income for the village was $58,646. About 0.8% of families and 2.5% of the population were below the poverty line, including 1.1% of those under age 18 and 5.0% of those age 65 or over.

and Yonkers

These are for the most part middle to upper( there’s some big time upper around) income ‘bedroom communities” with a high percentage of people dependent on NYC jobs. Many of them get reasonable Metro North service. At least this crowd pays New York State Taxes.