Angry New Yorker

Semi-Daily Rants from New York City's Angry Man

"As I know more of mankind I expect less of them, and am ready now to call a man a good man, upon easier terms than I was formerly." - Dr. Samuel Johnson, Boswell, Life of Johnson, Sept. 1783

Archives


Links
Friday, October 31, 2003
 
After careful review and study, here's how I'm voting on the 6 proposals appearing on the ballot on November 4th, and I hoping to convincing you to do likewise. The six ballots cover:

1. Paying for Sewage Systems - "Exclusion of Indebtedness Contracted for Sewage Facilities"
2. Paying for Schools in Small Cities - "Elimination of Small City School Districts from Constitutional Debt Limitations"
3. Non-Partisan Elections - "A Question - City Elections"
4. City Purchasing - "A Question - City Purchasing"
5. Government Administration - "A Question - Government Administration"
6. Class Size - "Class Size"

Details on the actual text and all six proposals are available at: http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/feature-commentary/20031020/202/572

And my take:

#1 - 1. Paying for Sewage Systems - Ballot text: "Exclusion of Indebtedness Contracted for Sewage Facilities"
YES. Although I'm always loathe to allow municipal governments to take on any additional debt, doing so for capital projects like sewers and such is different than borrowing to pay ongoing expenditures -- a dangerous practice the state and city are currently engaged in.

# 2. Paying for Schools in Small Cities - Ballot text: "Elimination of Small City School Districts from Constitutional Debt Limitations"
NO. The NYS teachers' union supports this measure and inevitably what ever the teachers' union is for, I'm against. Knee-jerking aside, this amendment would lead us down the road to California's mess by constitutionalizing spending with no linkage to providing for the funds. Additionally, given that the NYS legislature is in the midst of providing a funding scheme to address the recent Court of Appeals decision, this proposal simply complicates the situation.

# 3. Non-Partisan Elections - Ballot text: "A Question - City Elections"
NO. Mayor Bloomberg and others support this measure arguing that the two political parties control candidates, which in NYC means that democrats often run unopposed and so the party's selection pre-picks the winning candidate. They argue this leads to low voter turnout and disenfranchisement. In the abstract these arguments wear a patina of reasonableness, but upon examination do not stand. Other parties, particularly the Republicans, have made strides against the democratic voting bloc in NYC, and what truly controls city politics and candidates these days are various unions and political groups -- not parties. The proposal's supporters argue many other cities have non-partisan elections for local government, but again, a study of how NYC's politics work (or more often don't work) reveals those cities are much less controlled by vested government interests and union voting. I'm voting NO.

#4. City Purchasing - Ballot text: "A Question - City Purchasing"
YES. The city's purchasing practices have been problematic for ages. And while this issue should ideally have been addressed by the city council (which often seems more interested in passing resolutions regarding U.S. foreign policy than actually governing NYC reasonably) and the mayor, slicing the Gordian knot at this stage seems efficacious.

# 5. Government Administration - Ballot text: "A Question - Government Administration"
NO. Again, the text of this proposal sounds benign, but would overly politicize the voters assistance commission in my opinion and the preliminary mayor's management report -- which a yes on this proposal would end -- is a useful tool that isn't overly costly to produce.

#6. Class Size - Ballot text: "Class Size"
NO. While arguing "won't someone think of the children?" appears to make this a no-brainer in favor of voting YES (after all who is in favor of large class sizes?) this proposal is misguided and, again, the NYS legislature is currently working on a state-wide plan to address school system funding inequities with a July 2004 deadline set by the NYS Court of Appeals. This measure's passing would, again, complicate that.
But more fundamentally, class size ALONE is not the measure of educational success. It is one factor, but a charter modification via a ballot proposal like this is not the method to use, and this method makes no provision for how to then pay for smaller class sizes, nor where the additional teachers would come from in a city already chronically short of high-quality teachers. I urge a strong NO vote.

And that's it. Remember to vote on November 4th because you only get the government you vote for.

posted by anonymous at 11:46 AM

 
How Feckless is the U.N.?
The U.N. has announced it will pull all of its people out of Iraq. And this is the organization Europe wants the U.S. to turn over control of Iraq? What a bunch of spineless poseurs. If you want control you need the muscle to back it up, and the U.N. has no true muscle. Look how well they've been doing in Africa. U.N. peace-keeping is an oxymoron.

posted by anonymous at 11:40 AM

Sunday, October 26, 2003
 
Sad democratic debates
I was just listening to the Democratic debate this Sunday evening, and I'm not sure what's sadder -- the pathetic one-liners, that Sharpton is still part of this group, that the Democrats think anyone trusts them with security, or the sorry state of democratic party.
Now I use to be a democratic, but over the past six years or so as the party swung further and further to left, and I moved to the right we parted ways probably for good. There's nothing the democrats have to offer, there's no understanding there that the government is not the source of all cures, there's no limit to their racial pandering, and there's no end in sight. Good luck and good night Democrats.

posted by anonymous at 10:10 PM

Friday, October 24, 2003
 
Mayor: Reconsider Tax Surcharge
By Dan Janison
Staff Writer, Newsday
http://www.nynewsday.com/news/local/newyork/politics/nyc-tax1024,0,1021354,print.story

October 23, 2003, 4:15 PM EDT

Mayor Michael Bloomberg today said that the absentee-landlord tax imposed by the city may be unfair -- and suggested it be reconsidered in his next budget talks with the City Council.

The mayor was reacting to a report in Newsday [that the law meant to hit those who profit from rooming houses and the like could sock tens of thousands of mere homeowners with an unjustified 25 percent surcharge.

"It is a very difficult tax to administer," the mayor told reporters in a midtown Manhattan press conference. "It's not clear that it's fair and it's not clear that you aren't burdening those who already have too great a tax burden as it is."

But the mayor signed it July 14 at the insistence of Council leaders who pushed for the levy, which its staff estimates is worth $44 million a year in city revenues, to help fill a huge deficit.

Council Speaker Gifford Miller, who championed the proposal, was expected to respond later in the day.

For the moment, Bloomberg suggested a measure that will protect those who are not absentee landlords: signing up for the state STAR program which gives exemptions only to those who live in their primary residences.

Officials say the Finance Department has little other way than these optional exemptions to distinguish absentees from other property owners . The law as writtten puts the burden on homeowners to prove they are NOT absentee landlords.

"Next time we pass a budget in the City Council, maybe it is time, if we're going to reduce taxes, to start there. And I hope we can reduce taxes."

posted by anonymous at 10:32 AM

Thursday, October 23, 2003
 
Big suits. Big costs. More stories

posted by anonymous at 12:09 AM

Tuesday, October 07, 2003
 
City Could Pull In $700M By Tolling East River, Harlem Bridges
OCTOBER 07TH, 2003, from NY1.com
[ed. note - 7 dollars!!! If the city slaps tolls on the East river crossing, an idea which has come up since at least the early 70s, it will be a huge drain and yet another slap in the face to the "outer" boros.]

Another study has found the city could rake in hundreds of millions of dollars by putting tolls on the East River and Harlem River bridges.

By charging $7 tolls on the Brooklyn, Manhattan, Queensborough and Williamsburg bridges and $3 on the city's nine Harlem River bridges, the city could take in $693 million a year, the Independent Budget Office predicts.

However, the study finds that most of the burden would fall on city residents, because 55 percent of the trips over those bridges are taken by people who live in the five boroughs.

If city residents are exempted from the tolls, as some have suggested, annual revenue would be about $300 million.

posted by anonymous at 11:36 AM

Sunday, October 05, 2003
 
Whose freedom?

The problem with discourse regarding immigration today is that if you say something viewed as being against immigration in any form, more often than not, you'll inevitably be tarred by the left as a "rascist" or a "bigot". The situation has gotten so pathetic that even legal immigrants who've becomes citizens themselves (i.e. Arnold) are labeled as racist if they suggest immigration should be curtailed, examined, or, that even current laws on the books should be enforced. against illegal immigrants.

The fact is that immigration today (legal and illegal) has skyrocketed. That's not my opinion. That's the U.S. government's. Just take a look at the annual Yearbook of Immigration Statistics (formerly entitled Statistical Yearbook of the Immigration and Naturalization Service), available at http://www.bcis.gov/graphics/shared/aboutus/statistics/Yearbook2002.pdf. At 253 pages there is a huge amount of information and statistics in this volume, but a quick look at the highlights listed on page 3 of the Yearbook provide a good summary of the situation:

"Highlights for 2002 include:
  • Legal immigration in 2002 (1,063,732) was lower than in 2001 (1,064,318). [Ed. but nearly 400,000 higher, still, than 2000].
  • Thirty-eight percent of all immigrants were born in North America (21 percent in Mexico) and 32 percent were born in Asia.
  • Sixty-five percent of all immigrants intended to reside in six states: California, New York, Florida, Texas, Illinois, and New Jersey.
  • Nearly one of five immigrants intended to reside in New York City or Los Angeles.
  • Refugee arrivals dropped in 2002 by 61 percent to 26,787 from 68,925 in 2001.
  • INS Asylum Officers approved 36 percent of asylum cases adjudicated in 2002.
  • Total nonimmigrant admissions in 2002 (27.9 million) decreased by 15 percent from 2001 (32.8 million). Nearly half were from four countries — the United Kingdom (15.4 percent), Mexico (15.0), Japan (13.1), and Germany (5.0).
  • The largest proportion of H-1B petition workers approved (197,537) was born in India (33 percent); the second largest proportion was born in the People’s Republic of China (10 percent).
  • The INS naturalized 573,708 persons in fiscal year 2002; forty-one percent were born in Asian countries, followed by 30 percent from North American countries.
  • California was the intended residence of 26 percent of persons naturalizing, followed by New York with 16 percent.
  • The number of deportable aliens located during 2002 declined 23 percent to 1.1 million.
  • The number of expedited removals declined almost 51 percent; other types of formal removal increased 6 percent.
  • Nearly 71,000 criminal aliens were removed; Mexico lead all countries of nationality with nearly 56,000 (79 percent).
"

Next, a quick look at the Executive Summary - Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: 1990 to 2000 (January 31, 2003), available at http://www.bcis.gov/graphics/shared/aboutus/statistics/2000ExecSumm.pdf, rounds out the picture by revealing, in its first sentence, that "[t]he INS estimates that 7.0 million unauthorized immigrants resided in the United States in January 2000." Seven million. That's nearly an entire New York city's worth of people in this country illegally.

Yet, even with all these hard facts and figures it's apparently impossible to have a reasoned discourse about immigration these days. Over in Flushing Meadow park this afternoon, October 4th, 2003, the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union sponsored a gathering called the "Immigrant Workers Freedom Ride" which culminated after a national bus ride in Washington and New York City. I'm claiming Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union is behind the mobilization because the IWFR website at www.iwfr.org is clearly copyrighted by the union, which leads me to the consideration that the union is as a secondary purpose looking for ways to boost its membership, and a large influx of aliens granted citizenship via some amnesty program would do just that.

But the fact of the matter is this "Freedom Ride" is a mockery of the 60's civil rights freedom rights. Apparently the fact that these people were "free" to slip over the border or to come to this country, and "free" virtually to work here, and "free" to organize, and just as "free" to leave the U.S. doesn't qualify as an aspect of "freedom." The Immigrant Workers Freedom Ride, which I quote from its website, has as its goals and demands five items:

"Policies that: 1) Reward work by granting legal status to hardworking, taxpaying, law-abiding immigrant workers already established in the United States; 2) Renew our democracy by clearing the path to citizenship and full political participation for our newest Americans; 3) Restore labor protections so that all workers, including immigrant workers, have the right to fair treatment on the job 4) Reunite families in a timely fashion by streamlining our outdated immigration policies; and 5) Respect the civil rights and civil liberties of all so that immigrants are treated equally under the law, the federal government remains subject to checks and balances, and civil rights laws are meaningfully enforced."

Let's examine each point in turn. Item one is essentially saying "reward us for coming into this country illegally because we're already here". Item two, reading between the lines, appears to say that a large influx of people who, in many cases, have no experience with democracy will in short renew our fitful democracy. Item three I'm not sure what it's saying. Item four is saying "we're here, whether illegally or legally, now let our family members come over too, now." Item five is mumbo jumbo.

All this highlights the point that we need to have a discussion about immigration. We need to openly debate what kind of country we are, what kind we want to be, and where immigration and how much of it fits into the best interests of this country. Painting any discussion about curtailing or examining immigration as rascist is counterproductive and short-cited. Sooner or later the discussion will be had, and the sooner the better for everyone, the U.S. and the world.

posted by anonymous at 10:05 PM

HOME
This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?