Dubai Debt Issues Push Stocks Down
GMA: Adam Lambert, No; Chris Brown, Yes
Report: Wife Scratched Tiger Woods' Face, Chased His SUV; Update: Police Unable To Interview Couple Today
Family Gets Early Christmas Gift From Ellen DeGeneres
Street Artist Proposes on Subway Signage
Today's Times looks at how rapidly Mayor Bloomberg has moved from the controversial and dragged out term limits issue headfirst into proposing potentially unpopular solutions that would deal with the city's dire financial picture. The mayor's moves to take away the property tax rebate, cut city jobs, close low-income dental clinics and suggest new taxes not only make for strange actions from someone in an election year, but also are creating a strained relationship with City Council members who are up for re-election as well. Councilman Vincent Gentile told the paper, “People are just holding on by their fingertips. (They have) a tin ear when it comes to the concerns of everyday New Yorkers.” But Deputy Mayor Edward Skyler defended the moves, “It’s hard to argue that a mayor who is proposing fewer police officers and the elimination of a property tax rebate is making decisions based on politics, rather than the best interest of the city.”
How Much Political Capital Can a Mayor Risk in Budget Fixes?
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebookComments (6) [rss]
Post a comment (Comment Policy)
Tips
Newsmap
Contribute
Bloomberg's constituents are only the top 1% of NYC's population. The rest of us can rot in Bloomberg's eyes.
Bloomberg is a total asshole.
I just love that some people are calling the nixing of the property tax rebate a "tax increase". Maybe they do not understand the concept of a rebate?? The reason the rebates started in 2004 was because of budget surpluses, with the obvious option of taking it back when needed. That why it was a "REBATE" and not a reduction in property taxes. Anyone who plans their finances around money which they do not have yet, nor can 100% expect to receive, is an idiot.
This is more of a political move than it appears. He is how I came to this conclusion. Bloomberg sets in motion some very unpopular financial remedies which make the city council look bad when they are forced to concede to his proposals. If they don't, Mayor looks bad but everyone knows there is no getting around this issue. The city is broken financially. The City Council will look even worse when in the short run up to the election, news looks even more dire in the face of rejection of Bloomberg's proposals. Everyone blames the City Council, Bloomberg gets elected, 90% of the Council gets kicked to the curb. Even if they agree with Bloomberg, the financial solutions hurt, council is to blame for voting with him on this, council gets kicked to the curb, Bloomberg wins reelection. Only the voters can damage both the Mayor and the City Council but, realizing that the actions of the Mayor are already set in motion, disrupting them, given the very thin evidence that they might actually work, just around election time, the people acquiesce and vote in Bloomberg and the Council gets kicked to the curb because the people have to hurt someone for hurting them. For Bloomberg, it is win-win-win. Get it-three wins...???
I'll vote for the first candidate that promises to go after corruption, fraud and plain old wasteful spending. I know I'm fantasizing here but I'd say both the city and state could survive on half what they get in taxes now if corruption, fraud, patronage jobs etc were taken out of the equation.
Ides - I'm right there with you. Corruption and favoritism is a big problem in NYC. I believe term limits help stave off corruption. Term limits definitely improved on increasing the number minorities in the Council.
If the city is in such economic trouble, why does the city need to spend $400 million on Willets Point? Shouldn't that money be prioritized accordingly during a financial crisis and directed to budgetary areas in need?