AA's "Fat Flier" Got Whole Row
Ashley Dupre On Tiger Woods' Babes: "At Least I Kept My Mouth Shut"
Same-Sex Marriage Blame Game Aims at Paterson, Addabbo
Rihanna's Random Airport Search
NYC Students "Die" On 25th Anniversary Of Bhopal Chemical Disaster
So about that Congestion pricing that we all got so hot and bothered for yesterday? Maybe not so much. Seems Bloomberg was not amused that only two days after the election his media spotlight got derailed by an issue that he didn't campaign on.
Speaking at the Veterans Day Parade hizzoner made clear that "It's not on our agenda to look at it... Congestion pricing is not something we're talking about." Further, that the scheme works well in London doesn't mean anything for us because "every city is different."
So if Bloomberg doesn't want congestion pricing, what does he want? Well, he wants to bring back the commuter tax of yore (ok, not really so much yore as 1999). Never really leaving the city, or ever driving for that matter, we kinda like both plans. But to be fair, we've always had a soft spot for the tax of 0.45% that commuters had to pay from '69-'99. Which would you prefer to see instituted, a new commuter tax or congestion pricing? Or both?
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
This is a no brainer for any nyc resident - the commuters from nassau/suffolk/westchester and jersey rely upon city services that resident's tax dollars support. Now as a city it is our responsibility to provide adequate services for a reasonable level of non-residential visitors; but commuters who earn their living on a daily basis, who use our services, should pay a fair amount for those services.
You can thank the state legislature, specifically Joe Bruno, for rescinding this tax, as well as screwing with our rent control and loft laws too.
This may help demonstrate why Bloomberg hasn't done such a bad job, and deserved to finish out a 2nd term.
The MTA, Ground Zero, and the city charter are all controlled by NY State; secession sounds good - doesn't it?
I'm all for the commuter tax, hell, more than half my office lives outside the five boroughs. (these are the one's who usually blame the trains for coming in late)
Oh one other thing; the last time someone pushed the idea of seceding from the state they wanted to name the 'new' state of new york city "GOTHAM".
I always loved the secession idea. And Gotham would be a nice name. Though I have one friend who pushes the idea one step further: He thinks that NYC should secede from the United States of America and sue for then name.
I love the secession idea, too. However I'd bring Westchester and Long Island too. I'd also keep the name New York, and everything else can be called Upstate.
against the commuter tax. commuters depend on the city for its services, but the city depends on commuters for its workforce/commerce. so, be careful, don't want to alienate them.
Bring Westchester and Long Island with the secession?!?!
Why?
Oh......so you could drain cash from them to support the city because the tap from Albany would be gone!
Got it!
On the subject of "depending" on commuters for the NYC workforce...is that similar to when those of us in the 5 Boroughs have to hold the fort at the first sign of a snowstorm or child's doctor appointment while you guys are "working from home." Sorry, I've dealt with this waaaaay too much, and it never seems to work out in my favor.
In addition, I have a lot of very talented friends in close proximity who are jobless, and would be quite happy to take the positions of commuters whining about a tax.
I'm with you on that curmudgen.
that's what you get for moving all the way out in the Poconos, Ossining or Holtsville. Yes, I know some people who live in these towns.
congestion tax, definitely
Oh yeah commuter tax and most importantly, secession from upstate NY. NYS is a major drain on the prosperity of NYC. NYC can't even take care of it's own services with a vampire like Upstate NY sucking NYC dry. We should definitely keep the name. Let the Upstaters change their name! They don't deserve it. Also, I believe without NYS draining NYC, taxes and such would plummet because NYC wouldn't have to keep it high just to be able to retain enough to keep services.
I like the idea of NYC as 51st state. As this article notes, NYC has more residents than an awful lot of full-blown states and they each get their own two senators while we have to share with upstate. Unfortunately, our dear federal gov't would never allow it for precisely that reason. They wouldn't want to dilute the pool of senators by adding more. And it could be the first pebble in a landslide. If we could successfully do it, why wouldn't Los Angeles follow suit? Definitely something Congress wants to avoid.
I'd say it's not a question of should we have congestion pricing, but rather when will we finally get it. Street space is a scarce commodity -- it just makes sense to charge for it.
The current system is pretty broken, especially when you consider that such a large majority of Manhattan residents don't even have a car, but have to put up with all the problems of a relatively small group of drivers.
Here's a trailer for a new film that highlights the success that London has had with congestion pricing:
http://www.cicalafilmworks.com/cs/