
ORGS
NYC Government
NYS Government
US Government
Advocates
BIDs
Civics
Culture
Foundations
History
Labor
Public/Private
Think Tanks
BOROS
Bronx
Brooklyn
Manhattan
Queens
Staten Island
News Sites
Daily News
NY Times
Daily News
NY Post
Newsday
New York Sun
NYC Weeklies
Amsterdam News
City Limits Weekly
Crain's New York Business
Gay City News
New York Magazine
New York Observer
New Yorker, The
Time Out New York
Village Voice
Dailies, Weeklies, Monthlies, etc. »
Other-Language Press
NYC Blogs »
Letters to the Editor
We discontinued our Letters to the Editor in 2002, because we attached a message board to every story. Look at the bottom of each article for the link to that article's message board. Once a week, we point our readers to the most interesting posts. Meanwhile, below are the archives of letters from our first three years of existence.
Thanks for "Eye on Albany"
(28 august '02)
I just wanted to let you know that I looked for information on the candidates for the Sept 10 primaries on several websites before discovering "Eye on Albany." It's just what I was looking for and more!! Thanks -- your diligent effort on providing up-to-date info to the public about the candidates is greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Kerrie Thompson
Where's The Happy News?
(23 august '02)
New Yorkers in Prison is a downer.
NYC getting the shaft from New York State, a downer.
You lead off every e-mail with rebuilding, a giant downer.
How about writing about:
Locations for best looking singles.
10 best lunch spots.
Sailing adventures in NYC.
I don't want NY Magazine, but try to be a little uplifting.
Gardner B. Semet
Love Letter
(26 august '02)
I loved Gardner B. Semet's August 23rd letter to you - please pay attention - our society needs uplifting stories as
well as the stories you cover about corruption, murders, rapes, taxes, etc. American Journalism could do with a thump on the head - people need to have their spirits lifted on a daily basis.
Surely there is at least one story in this big city that you can find about a person who is doing a service for the community, helping a neighbor, visiting a hospital of a hospice - how about a "person of the week" column?
Patricia Ann Haring
"Every child smiles in the same language." -- Anonymous
Higher Pay Won't Stop Corruption
(9 july '02)
I'm writing in response to your very interesting article on
corruption and abuse of power. You quote Edwin Burrows asking "... do you think we'd have corrupt building inspectors if they were paid enough that no bribe was worth taking?"
I would have thought that the recent Enron, Worldcom and other corporate scandals were a good indication that, yes, you'll always have someone who wants more than he's (and they do seem to be overwhelmingly he) making.
To imply that all we need to do is pay public servants on a corporate scale seems naive. The much-vaunted business model as an example for effective government management may need a little re-examination.
Joyce Klemperer
Resents Tone Of Eye On Albany
(24 june '02)
I should state at the outset that I am a lifelong
resident of the five boroughs of NYC.
While I applaud this new Gotham Gazette initiative to track developments in the state capital, and I CERTAINLY agree that the legislative mechanism that operates there is -- as you very susinctly put it -- dysfunctional, I resent the divisive upstate-vs-downstate tone that you take. Indeed, one of the reasons many upstaters hate us is because we think we are "more special" than they are.
Your piece seems to imply that we, as a city, are ENTITLED to govern ourselves. Sez who? Cities, as you know, are creatures of the state. The state owns the marbles, owns the sandlot and makes the rules. Instead of being resentful of the power we don't have, we should be grateful for the modest home-rule authority we have been given.
NYCers are quick to resent it when upstaters meddle in "our" affairs. "What do they know about the education, economic and transportation needs of the City?" they ask. Well, what do NYCers know about upstate needs? Chances are they know -- and care -- considerably
less.Pesonally, I have little problem with the current arrangement. Unlike so many City residents (like you, it seems) who say they are New Yorkers and mean only that they live in one of the five boroughs, I say I'm a New Yorker and mean I'm from the Empire State.
Michael Miscione
An Alternative, Not A Replacement!
(23 may '02)
I thought that your article on Catholic Schools was very well done. As author of the NYU study cited in your article, I know how this complicated issue defies easy explanations. I thought that your piece captured these complexities. My own conclusion on the issue is that people make too much of the comparison of the public and Catholic systems. In the end, the families of the city benefit from having alternatives to the public school system, including Catholic schools. The Catholic schools tend to provide the only alternative in the city's poorer neighborhoods. Those are reasons enough for people of good will to want to see the Catholic schools survive. At the same time, the Catholic school system is not poised for growth. Obviously, it can never replace the public system. In my opinion, claims that vouchers will bankrupt the public schools are wildly overstated.
Congratulations on a well written and thoughtful essay.
Raymond Domanico
Adopt From A Shelter!
(15 april '02)
Bravo to Tracey Middlekauff for publicizing the
issue
of our dog and cat overpopulation crisis. These
animals not only are being killed by the millions in
U.S. shelters each year, but many also are
homeless and suffering, not knowing where their next
meal will come from, nor with any protection from the
elements.
A single un-spayed cat and her next of kin can, according to the Humane Society of the United States, produce 420,000 cats in a mere seven years. Similarly, a single dog can set in motion the birth of 67,000 dogs in just six years.
A very simple solution exists. We must stop buying from breeders and pet stores, which will only continue to produce more animals. Instead, animal shelters allow us to simultaneously adopt a new family member and save a life. After adopting, we must also be vigilant about spaying and neutering our companion dogs and cats. As those who have created this crisis through our own irresponsibility, we have a grave responsibility to rectify it.
Suzanne McMillan
Compassion Over Killing
www.cok.net
Recycling, Then And Now
(13 april '02)
I am 47 years old. When I was a teenager in Michigan, we recycled everything --
but it was not a big deal, it was part of life- newspapers were actually SOLD to the junkman.
Bottles and cans were a good source of income for us kids, we went dooor to door and got
deposit bottles to return. Old clothes were turned into doll clothes and rags for cleaning.
Rubber bands were used and reused until they disintegrated. Plastic containers were rare --
we rarely used them. Why not ban plastic except for crucial things like bleach. And introduce
recycling into thepost office -- how many pieces of paper get tossed everyday there? Put
deposit bottles on the stoop -- homeless and poor people collect them for you!
Greta Schiller
Manhattan
Recycling
(11 april '02)
I appreciated the articles and focus on waste disposal. What seems to
be missing in the population at large is a concern with the incredible
despoiling that will eventually occur with each fast and easy purchase
of take out food. Is there some way that we can bring our own
glass/plastic containers with us when we shop? I know that in our
liability conscious society many shopkeepers will worry about being sued
should someone get food poisoning using a container that they brought
with them, but I remember my mother's glass jars in the 1950's which she
used to buy pickles and other foodstuffs.This is not unlike the SUV
issue. New York is take out city. There needs to be more education.
Also, why can't we work on the economic recycling of the non-1 and 2
plastics? Is is really unfeasible? Perhaps if we thought petroleum
dependency each time we bought something that used plastic deli
containers and utensils, we might stop at the food counter and cash
register.
Estelle Haferling
Recycling Is Worth It
(8 april '02)
Your article on recycling gives me an opportunity to address an issue of great importance to
future generations. As one who worked with the Village Green Recycling Team many years ago, I am convinced that the environmental mantra, "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle" can be made to pay for itself.
In many cities, recyclables are picked up for free, while non-recyclable garbage carries a fee ranging from $1 - $4 per bag. This system allows people who do not want to "bother" with recycling the option of paying for their folly. It generates income for the city which covers any losses from current recycling systems.
In any case, it is worth it!
Jean Lyman Goetz
Community Planning Boards
(31 march '02)
If community-based planning, as institutionalized by this city in the form
of Community Planning Boards, was a 1960s reaction to too much centralized
control unresponsive to local needs, then, the failure of Community Boards
to generate and implement effective neighborhood plans in most
neighborhoods
is at least in part because there hasn't been any meaningful centralized
planning to which to react for the past 2-3 decades.
In other words, the concept of community-based planning calls out for the existence of a strong central Planning Department that represents the larger picture, the citywide interests and needs, for balance (as well as to provide the technical expertise that is neither administratively nor financially possible on an independent neighborhood basis).
Like a lot of other institutions and programs that were created in those heady early-60's times, largely in response to the excesses of an earlier era, Community Planning Boards as currently constituted are obsolete. Like many of those other institutions, entrenched interests over the intervening decades tend to make them increasingly undemocratic. They are overripe for reform or abolition.
Alan Lubliner
Term Limits For Community Boards
(25 march '02)
Granted, the 59 community boards vary tremendously in quality and collegiality. However, one thing
is true across the city: many community boards do not represent the neighborhoods they encompass.
A great example is Downtown and West Brooklyn, where, for over a decade, civic and neighborhood groups have led the fight for pedestrian safety, less traffic and full environmental review of the planned rebuilding of the Gowanus Expressway. There and elsewhere, community boards have represented an entrenched status quo of the most conservative segment of the public. Not surprising, since board members are appointed by elected officials, who are less likely to lose their seats than a member of the politburo.
Indeed, a growing number of political thinkers are concerned that community boards have become undemocratic structures which exist to shield elected officials from accountability. More often than not, the public turns to community boards to complain about basic services like garbage removal and street lights. Yet, the boards are not accountable to anyone --- except perhaps to local political clubs.
A recent proposal by C. Virginia Fields to limit board members to 12 year terms (!) was met with much gnashing of teeth. Not surprising since some board members have served as long as 35 years, and many longer than a decade. Even more than elected officials --- who can at least be tossed out at the polls --- community board members should be term limited. The public seems to like eight years for its councilmembers and mayor, how about the same for CBŒs.
John Kaehny
Transportation Alternatives
Manhattan
Eminent Domain
(5 march '02)
The seven-story Home Depot parking lot under which the government
proposes to bury Mr. Minic's East Harlem woodworking shop is a mockery
of city planning. Your piece about
eminent domain
is a welcome
step in the right direction.
GothamGazette.com should take note that the Institute of Justice has just established a web site for eminent domain abuse, CastleCoalition.org. IJ is lead counsel in the case Minic v. Gargano, challenging the New York eminent domain statute. In dismissing the case on other grounds, the District Court for the Southern District of New York (Baer, J.) made it clear that it was not negating the Institute of Justice's constitutional challenge. The case is currently on appeal to the Second Circuit. The Institute of Justice has successfully battled eminent domain abuse elsewhere.
Yours very truly,
Mary Campbell Gallagher
Not Taxing
(15 december '01)
As someone involved somewhat in the political process, I see how patronage works and doesn't work. I agree that
if hiring was based on the ability, hiring someone who worked hard for your organization and who knew the ins and
outs of politics, would be better than hiring a complete novice...but this is ofen NOT the case. People are hired
for WHO they know, not WHAT they know, and that is why we often have incompetence in city council offices. I
don't think that will be the case this time around because all of the councilman, themselves, will be novices and
will need experienced people to help them. We can only watch and see.....but there is often a reason people get
involved in political clubs and one of those reasons is a wish for a job. Sometimes it is harmful and the person is
just a loser, sometimes it is smart because that person not only wants to ! help his community but finds he can
become a profession and help at the same time........think about that? PS....I never wanted, nor would I accept
a political job!
Marsha Livson
Not Taxing
(21 august '01) Kudos to you and Glenn Pasaden for a fine article on the property tax. Rarely have I seen such a complex issue explained so clearly and succinctly.
Tom Bergdall
No Secrets -- Special Interests
(21 august '01)
The fact that tenants pay higher real estate taxes has never really been a
secret. [New York's Secret Tax August 20 2001] It was one of the
pay-offs to the system to maintain rent
regulation. As long as the basic rent was under control, few tenants cared
about how their rent was determined and how the costs of property and water
taxes figured in to the total. Although the latter tax ballooned and
although the former was disproportionately high in comparison to those of
homeowners, tenants were more concerned about the bottom line in terms of
their own rent.
During the great property tax wars of the 1980's, homeowners understood very well their tax advantage and organized long and hard. Politically astute (voters ALL) they managed to protect their property tax advantage and limit potential tax increases. Tenant advocacy groups generally work to protect rent control and regulation because if repealed, that's where the really large rent increases can come from.
The powers that be in the city and state quickly caved in. One major reason was to protect that homeowner middle class taxpayer base from leaving the city. Indeed, if there is a secret behind property tax inequalities, that was it. Without a property tax advantage, the fear was that homeowners would move en masse to Jersey or Long Island (no income taxes there) and even if taxes are higher in those locales, excellent services and better schools were the rewards.
Politicians tend to fear reform of the property tax. Even within the commercial class there are inequalities as some owners are more aggressive and/or astute at getting tax credits or tax reductions through a variety of programs than others. At least now the city can count on a fairly steady stream of revenue.
So -- there really aren't any secrets out there. There are just different advocacy groups protecting what they see as their advantage.
Lenore Chester
Demographic Disagreement
(15 june '01)
I take very strong issue with Andrew Beveridge's article on Demographics/redistricting that says:
In the past, Congressional districts were created in very odd shapes in order to carve out a district in which the majority
of the population were "minorities."
This statement is, at best, misleading. Many oddly drawn districts were caused by attempts to include or exclude certain individuals, such as family members, party members, and current and future candidates. Oddly drawn districts existed before there were any attempts to create districts that would allow the election of black, latino or asian candidates. In fact, oddly shaped districts were often created to suppress the election of these candidates.
Beveridge's statement incorrectly blames a bad politics on attempts to redress longstanding and ongoing racist public policy. This is a typical mistake that misinforms the dialogue around racial priviledge and racial justice. It would have been more accurate to indicate that ONE of the reasons that district were oddly drawn was due to inteions to carve 'majority-minority' districts.
Additionally, I would have been interested in having him delve into another piece of the racial impacts of the changing demographics of NYS--the reality that despite the fact that it is the mostly white voters and congressmembers upstate that is losing population, NYC may be forced to lose a seat, thereby having a negative impact on the majority of voters here--people of color. I understand the politics of it, but it is interesting that as the majority NYS population decreases (whites), majority NYC folks (people of color) get negatively impacted.
Anyway, i often enjoy reading your website. I was disappointed in this article. An additional suggestion i have is to have some public section for comments on articles.
Thanks,
Ludovic Blain III
Editor's Note: We do have such a public section for comments. It is called the Letters to the Editor, which you are reading now.
Praise For Finance Topic Page
(15 may '01)
Excellent anlysis, very useful for me in the council budget negotiations
as a member of negotiating team, as well in helping to explain to my
constituents. Thanks. We need more of this timely relevant analysis.
Bill Perkins
Bill Perkins is a member of the City Council representing the ninth district in Northern Manhattan
Should We Miss Them?
(8 may '01)
Congratulations on even-handed and knowledgeable appraisal of Council in the new charter era [by Lenore
Chester, May 7, 2001]. As a goo-goo who has observed many Council meetings for last 12 years, I agree with your
individual assessments.
Marjorie Shea
Marjorie Shea is a member of Citizens Union and serves on the board of the Women's City Club where she chairs the Infrastructure Committee.
Thoughts On NIMBY
(8 may '01)
I was out of the office until today, and only now read the NIMBY piece. While generally good, I have a correction and three thoughts to share:
1) I was identified as a lawyer representing Williamsburg community groups I'm actually a community organizer working with low income communities/communities of color that have been targeted for redundant power plant sitings. These community groups helped form CURE (or Communities United for Responsible Energy). This coalition is comprised of community groups from Sunset Park, Williamsburg-Greenpoint, the Lower East Side, Long Island City/Astoria and the South Bronx. CURE is advocating for a sound NYS energy plan that meets our energy needs in an environmentally responsible manner, rather than through the proliferation of power plants in communities reeling from skyrocketing asthma rates and poor air quality.
2) The other citywide environmental justice coalition which united impacted communities from the 5 boroughs to take on the waste transfer station problem is the Organization of Waterfront Neighborhoods (OWN). OWN recently won a stunning victory compelling the Giuliani Administration to retreat from a proposal to construct mega transfer stations in communities saturated with private transfer stations and to conduct a study next year examining the City's commercial waste stream.
Often overlooked is the role community groups have played (in coalition) to force city and state officials to plan for the City's infrastructure needs, as opposed to mere privatization "solutions". In this regard, the community coalitions have changed the terms of the siting debate. In the spirit of environmental justice, both OWN and CURE have spearheaded the calls for:
a) maximizing existing city infrastucture before building more polluting, redundant facilities that undermine all conservation efforts(i.e. - retrofitting City-owned marine transfer stations for waste export via water, and repowering/cleaning up existing power plants to reduce emissions while providing a higher megawatt yield),
b) maximizing principles of sustainable development by reducing out-of-control demand (i.e. - waste prevention and energy conservation is not only better for the environment, but reduces pressures for more transfer stations and power plants)
c) fighting not only for a more equitable facilities sitings system, but to affirmatively clean up polluted communities of color and low income communities.
3) Michael Gerrard wrote an interesting note for the Spring 1994 Fordham Urban Law Journal. Entitled "The Victims of NIMBY" Gerrard posits that NIMBY actually encourages environmental racism by accommodating the political muscle of well-heeled and/or whiter communities in their siting fights. As a result, NIMBY actually promotes the concentration of polluting facillities in politically less powerful communities - thus, the struggle for environmental justice.
In conclusion, love that Gotham Gazette. Keep 'em coming...
Eddie Bautista
Searchlight's Mayoral Coverage
(20 april '01)
I find Philip Lentz's political summary on this year's mayoral election to be spotty, if not critically flawed and misleading to readers.
Positioned as both preview to the campaign news section and commentary on the political machinations of each campaign, it derives its
analysis from little more than a host of dated characterizations and pat, overly-reductive wrap-ups.
To characterize Mark Green, for example, as "the most liberal candidate in the field," is to ignore Green's recent and extremely public efforts to appeal to conservative, white voters- mainstays of the Guiliani voting block. Ever-concerned with his image as a liberal who's soft on crime, Green is working double-time to allay these fears by proposing an end to parole and vowing to "blow up" the Board of Education (a la Guiliani). The irony is that Green is simultaneously working his liberal base on the risky assumption that somehow the inconsistency won't be noticed. Green held two press conferences within a month's time: one standing with Saikou Diallo, father of the late Amadou Diallo, to promote his record on criticizing police misconduct; the other, a photo op and endorsement from Police Commissioner Bill Bratton, the same Commissioner who oversaw the same Street Crime Unit responsible for the slaying of Amadou Diallo, (Mark probably failed to mention to Mr. Diallo that he has yet to state publicly that Edward McMellon, who fired 19 of the bullets that killed his son, does not belong in NYPD uniform). So, if you're offering the term "most liberal" as a litmus, then it really demands a more liberal definition where applied to Mark Green.
In turn, Bronx BP Fernando Ferrer's entire candidacy, like that of so many minority candidates, is reduced to a flimsy, race-baiting ploy for black and Hispanic votes. The underlying presumption, of course, is that Ferrer, because he is Latino, offers nothing more substantive than the mere fact of his race; that his primary directive is to "ride into Gracie Mansion" on the simple hope that minority voters will rally around this unifying point; that race alone carries some bizarre cachet capable of filling an entire season of policy debate- and framing an entire political strategy. This says something not only about how minority candidates are viewed, but also about how minority communities are viewed. It says that, because he is Latino, Ferrer's message is necessarily framed! by race, and his appeal is limited to those he most resembles. It says that Ferrer, as a person of color, has no broader vision for the roughly 8 million inhabitants of this diverse city. But it also says that minority communities attracted to Ferrer's message have no greater concern than to put another minority into the Mayor's seat. It says that Ferrer is, first and foremost, Latino, and that being Latino somehow amounts to a liability.
The fact is, Ferrer has received more extensive and significant endorsements from Democratic leaders than any of the other candidates. This includes elected officials at the state and congressional level, local officials, city council members, community leaders as ethnically, racially, and politically diverse as this city as a whole. Not only is Ferrer running a strong second in all of the polls, but he's noticeably gaining on Green, whose numbers have slipped in the past two Quinnipiac polls.
You claim to offer the kind of candor and objectivity not found in the major newspapers and networks. Perhaps, then, your coverage ought to reflect these political realities.
Jen Schneider
Brooklyn, NY
Why Mitchell-Lama Ended
(11 april '01)
The Mitchell-Lama program was supposed to be one in which there
were
minimal subsidies from state or city funds. The main subsidy was exemption
from real estate taxes. A major financial advantage, passed through in the
form of lower rents or carrying charges, was that the interest rate on the
mortgages was approximately equal to the low interest rates on City or
State bonds.
The main reason that the program ended was that it actually required very large subsidies, for some (but not all) projects. The oldest City projects mostly worked well, but by the late 1960s, the City was financing new projects from the proceeds of short-term Bond Anticipation Notes (BANs). This was done because the interest rates on short-term notes were lower than the interst on long-term bonds; the hope was that long-term rates would come down and long-term bonds could be issued and the BANs paid off. All this was done to minimize rents and carrying charges, for co-ops.
In the event, interest rates kept climbing, and mortgage payment requirements increased. Project after project defaulted on the required payments. They simply refused to pay what was required. By 1975, the city had about $1.8 billion of Mitchell-Lama BANs outstanding, virtually all in default. In the aftermath of the 1975 fiscal crisis, the city had to write these off in large part, by selling them to the federal government at a small fraction of their face value (the federal government then replaced the BANs with new mortgages that were much smaller, and therefore had lower payment requirements).
This did not happen for the State-financed Mitchell-Lama program. However, the largest state project--Co-op City--has paid very little of the required mortgage payments. This began with a long rent strike, and has continued to this day. The Legislature has appropriated state tax money year after year to pay the debt service on State Housing Finance Agency bonds issued to finance Co-op City. The subsidy is a very large one by now.
(Co-op City is now required to pay the arrears in full after the bonds mature in 2013, but everyone knows that the state will forgive those payments; this cannot be done, under the terms of the bonds, as long as they are outstanding.)
It should be noted that there are widespread violations of the income limits set in the Mitchell-Lama law. At Co-op City a few years ago, about 35 percent of all co-op owners refused to file income statements at all, and large numbers of those who did file reported their income to be zero, which is impossible since the definition of income includes receipts from all sources, including gifts and Social Security.
Given this history, it is hard to make much of a case for a new Mitchell-Lama program, despite the existence of projects with a splendid history.
Dick Netzer, Professor Emeritus of Economics and Public Administration
Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service
The Downside of Private Funding for Parks
(6 april '01)
Thank you for Anne Schwartz' excellent and informative overview of issues relating to NYC Parks. Her call for increased budgetary allotments for city park construction, improvement, and maintenance is desperately needed.
Can the city have good parks without government funding? Yes; but, only by way of private management plans or similar private-public partnerships. And such solutions yield mixed results: various degrees of privatization can clean up a public park, but such solutions also make public parks less truly the public's. For instance, the redemption of Bryant Park by the Bryant Park Restoration Corporation (BPRC) borders on the miraculous. The Bryant Park corporation deserves high praise--the park is now appropriately world-famous. But, if my sources are correct, the approximately $300,000 that Bryant Park no longer receives via New York City/Parks & Recreation is sorely missed. The center lawn of the park is increasingly frequently closed because of special events. The Bryant Park Restoration Corporation claims that--even if such events can deny the public use of a public space--they are a necessary way of generating critically needed revenue. That might be true. I do not know how to verify such a claim. But, setting aside any questions about the accuracy of BPRC's assessment of the situation and its proposed solutions, the entire predicament would be avoided--and this wonderful public space open to the public more often--if Bryant Park received better funding from the city. If our city's parks continue to get short-shrift, privatization plans, roughly similar to the creation of the Bryant Park Restoration Corporation, might become increasingly common. Such plans are not by definition invalid or even likely to be unsuccessful, but they dramatically compromise the principal of public space--green or recreational space owned by the public and serving, first and foremost, the public.
Scott Isebrand Chair, Parks Committee of Manhattan Community Board Five
Please Send More Like This One
(23 march '01)
I am addicted, after just three visits to your website, to your coverage of the NYC elections. Keep it up!
Joe E. Ross, Lieut., U.S. Navy (and native of Manhattan)
Humacao, Puerto Rico
Please Send Fewer of These
(23 march '01)
I would like to commend gothamgazette. It is a tremendous informational
tool
that one can spend hours reading.
I have only one complaint--you spelled my name wrong. I am the writer from City Limits magazine who wrote about the crowded City Council race in Jackson Heights. My last name is M-a-c-K-a-y.
As a professional writer who makes mistakes, I cannot get angry at a person who spells my name wrong. However, I am now writing another City Limits piece on the Corona race. Should you use it, I doubt you would want to make the same mistake twice. Thanks.
Rob McKay
Money DOES Make A Difference
(15 march '01)
Seth Forman's article [the week of March 12, 2001] is a nice piece of political propaganda along the discredited line of: "Money doesn't matter, so why bother, just send them all to parochial school."
In fact, the evidence during the nine-month trial brought against the State of New York by the Campaign for Fiscal Equity established that adequate money IS necessary for a sound basic education, and that poor and minority children have been systematically deprived of the resources for a good education in New York State. If you spend less money on one child's education than on a "similar" child's education, the first child has less opportunity to learn and is less likely to be successful.
True, once you've equalized spending for all students, and provided extra resources required to overcome the disadvantages some children bring to school (e.g., preschool for those who can't afford it; food for hungry children; medical and dental preventative care), there is STILL an achievement gap between advantaged and disadvantaged children. Education can't "overcome" ALL disadvantages, such as stunted development caused by lead poisoning and malnutrition. However, recent scholarship estimates that roughly half of the gap CAN be closed if disadvantaged children were provided with the same quality education as their more advantaged peers. Which means, we are currently depriving children living in less wealthy communities of the same opportunity to learn that children living in wealthier communities enjoy.
But you have to look beyond financial resources at the poor quality of teachers and principals in the schools poor children are consigned to. In New York State at least, poor and minority children disproportionately receive an education from poorer quality teachers, as was amply demonstrated at the Campaign for Fiscal Equity trial. Teacher quality has been demonstrated to be the most important factor in a student's successful outcome. If poor and minority children have lower quality teachers, how can you expect them to achieve at high levels?
I believe we should ALSO attend to the social and economic factors underlying poor school achievement by poor children. I would love for there to be universal access to decent housing, health care, nutrition and child care -- like every other "developed" country in the world provides for its citizens. THEN you'd really see our least advantaged children achieve at higher levels.
But I don't think that's where Mr. Forman is going. Is he proposing that we provide universal access to good health care, housing, nutrition and child care so that children have fewer disadvantages to "overcome" when they get to school? I suspect not.> The public school system has been under attack by the extreme right wing for failing to educate children whom it was never asked to educate in the past, children who are harder to educate because they have often been deprived of adequate nutrition, health care, etc. Saying that "money will not improve student performance" is playing into the public perception, created by right wing propaganda, that there's something wrong with the kids or something wrong with public education that's not fixable by rational public policies
I'm really dismayed that Gotham Gazette is promoting this viewpoint.
Dorothy Siegel
NYC Issues 2001 Candidate Seminars
(05 march '01)
I had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Mandell at the Baruch College City
Council Forum this past weekend. He mentioned that there will be a series of NYC Campaign Forums being organized, but he ran out of flyers.
Would you be able to send me information regarding this? Thanks.
John Choe
Citizens Union Foundation (the publisher of Gotham Gazette), in conjunction with the New York University Center for Excellence in New York City Governance and Coro, is offering free seminars for City Council candidates and their key staff.
These roundtable discussions with policy experts on five important issues facing the city will take place at the Salmagundi Club, at 47 Fifth Avenue, according to the following schedule:
March 28: Education and Housing
April 11: Public Safety; Immigration and Race
May 2: Economic Development and Housing
May 16: Public Safety and Education
May 30: Economic Development; Immigrant and Race
A light supper is included. To get invited, call Heather Lawrence at (212) 248-2935, extension 233.
Gotham Gazette will be posting issue papers and articles connected to these seminars on Searchlight on Campaign 2001
The Public's Right to Know About Public Spaces
(05 feb '01)
The Land Use Committee of Community Board 6, Manhattan, under the leadership of Edward Rubin, recently formed a
sub-committee on publicly owned/private spaces. We have begun to reach out to The Borough Presidents Office, and found her offices
to be open and accessible, as well as other community boards. While there are multiple causes, and enough blame, for poor spaces, the
issue deserves more attention and when necessary, enforcement - but, and in my personal opinion this is a big but, the public at large is
not aware of their rights to these spaces and education must also be part of the process of (re) claiming the public's spaces.
Steven M. Portnoy
If The Government Were in the Movie Business, We'd Still Be Watching Waterworld
(19 dec '00)
I really enjoyed Gail Robinson's thorough review of
the arguments for and against privatization ("Going
Private", Nov. 27). To me, the question is not
whether the private sector always provides better
services than the public sector (it does), or whether
the services provided by city government are vital
(some of them, such as OTB, are quite dubious). The
important question is, should taxpayers' money ever be
used to provide these services? With very few
exceptions, the answer is no.
As a libertarian, I believe that government exists solely to protect its citizens from force and fraud. To fulfill this mission, government legitimately provides what economists refer to as public goods, because they inherently benefit all members of society. If we asked individuals to voluntarily pay for public goods, we would have "free riders" who enjoy the benefit of those goods without paying anything. However, most of the government services that we take for granted today, while probably essential, are not public goods. Schools are not a public good; they benefit the students who attend them. Hospitals benefit their patients, no one else. Is society as a whole better off because these services are provided? Absolutely. But the free market will provide these services without government interference, just as it provides other essential non-public goods, such as food and clothing, at all levels of the economic spectrum. For the government to contract out services to private firms, through vouchers or direct payments, is a false privatization, because tax money is still being used to pay for the services. Getting government out of these services completely is the only ethical and economically rational solution.
Robinson cites Crystal Pepsi and "Waterworld" as examples of the private sector's occasional incompetence. However, these examples only reinforce the beauty of the free markets. When Crystal Pepsi failed, people were free to choose from countless other soft drinks, which they did, leaving only Pepsico and its shareholders to suffer any losses. If the government were in the soft drink business, we would have fewer choices, and we would all pay the price of any failed innovation with our tax dollars. If the city were in the movie business, "Waterworld" would still be playing to empty theaters, and James Cameron would have been told we can't afford to make "Titantic".
Interestingly, Bronx Borough President Fernando Ferrer gets it exactly right in his sidebar article when he writes, "Government's role involves no more and no less than providing a safe and secure environment in which people can freely co-exist." I couldn't agree more. Sadly, he goes on to contradict that principle throughout the rest of the article.
Jim Lesczynski
Media Relations Director
Manhattan Libertarian Party
View from the Suburbs
(09 dec '00)
The fulcrum in the upstate-downstate argument -- which as the author has
said dates back to the early days of colonization -- are the suburbs,
particularly Westchester and Rockland Counties, where both city
sensisbilities and upstate opinions meet. As the leader of Westchester's
County Legislature for the last 3 years, the first Democrat to do so in
90 years, I can tell you that we are as committed to mass transit
funding as NYC, and as committed to protecting the drinking watershed
around the Kensico Reservoir as is NYC. The suburbs are increasingly
two-party competitive, with both low property taxes and environmental
protection of high import.
Rockland's legislature has passed a Living Wage Law and Westchester has passed common-sense gun control and a Human Rights Commission with subpoena power and including sexual orientation -- both very progressve measures. Our area joins with upstaters in seeking a balance in state aid reimbursements -- Rockland, Westchester, Nassau and Suffolk are behind upstate and NYC in percentage of state education funding. And we have in Westchester, despite the per capita income figures, communities like the City of Mount Vernon, 70,000 people, with a majority African-American population with need equal to that of any NYC neighborhood or upstate city.
The sharp lines of demarcation on style and attitude -- reflected by Mayor Koch's intemperate '82 comments, and the intemperate response of others upstate -- will always provide fodder for stories that stir the blood and regional pride. The path in the years ahead, however, requires us to see our many common interests, not our differences. That process is happening everyday in the public policy decision-making of places like Westchester and Rockland.
George Latimer, Chairman
Westchester County Board of Legislators
Yes, We DO Need Campaign Finance Reform
(30 oct '00)
Susan Reefer's article in this week's edition is startlingly audacious: it
makes a commendable effort, a la Humpty Dumpty, to turn every aspect of the
issue of campaign finance reform on its head. With results similar to
Humpty's, I fear.
Campaigns don't cost too much money? Yes, they do. Because the upward spiral of what you would need to make a credible run for political office has escalated off the charts, ordinary citizens simply do not even think about becoming candidates for public office. That leaves the field open to two kinds of people: those who have large amounts of money and those who have access to large amounts of money.
In establishing her point, Ms. Reefer begins with a howling non sequitur: most campaign money doesn't go to staff or headquarters operations, but to media advertising. So what?
She then makes a comparison: she says campaigns cost no more than advertising campaigns by corporations to sell their products. But ordinary citizens are not corporations, and ordinary citizens do not have access to millions of dollars to run their campaigns.
Campaign funds are not spent unethically? Another non sequitur. The funds are RAISED in a way that binds candidates to their funders. In a one-person, one-vote system, the fact that candidates are beholden to their funders, rather than to the electorate at large, constitutes an unethical distortion of democracy.
Whoever raises the most will not necessarily win? A partial truth that obscures the reality of the problem with the system. Whoever raises the most USUALLY wins. The fact that there are exceptions hardly vitiates the point.
The problem isn't that individual contributors can give too much money? Another misleading partial truth. The problem is that the wealthiest people in the society AS AN AGGREGATE can give WAY too much money. And the remaining 80 percent of the population cannot. As a correlate: candidates spend nearly all their time throughout the years it takes to raise the money to run, talking to and trying to please, a tiny portion of the electorate. They cannot take valuable fundraising time to listen to ordinary voters about their concerns.
It s not true that only the wealthy can afford to run? A third misleading partial truth. Ms. Reefer argues that "shyness or excessive politeness" is what keeps the average citizen from effectively raising money. The fact is that most average citizens a) do not know anybody who can give a thousand-dollar contribution and b) neither desire nor would benefit from the kind of public-policy giveaways that favor the very rich and corporate lobbyists.
It would be a disaster if everyone who has an ax to grind could get access to free television time? Reality check: all systems of public campaign finance have entry requirements of a number of signatures or a qualifying number of campaign contributions that keep the number of publicly financed candidates down to a reasonable number.
The reason campaign finance reform has risen to the top of the public policy agenda, and is an issue in this campaign season, is that voters have finally become so horrified by the spectacle of public offices being sold to the highest bidder in the form of spiraling campaign contributions by the very few that, instead of simply opting out of the system, they are demanding fundamental change.
Credit for this goes in part to John McCain and Bill Bradley for picking up the torch. Credit also goes to Public Campaign and the Alliance for Better Campaigns, national organizations that have highlighted the issues and proposed reasonable solutions: public finance of campaigns and access to free media time for qualified candidates.
But the biggest part of the credit goes to an electorate that wants our electoral system to work the ways the Founders and subsequent generations of supporters of the Constitution have envisioned it: One person, one vote
Linda Stone Davidoff
Davidoff is an urban planner who has run for public office
Give This Man A Cookje
(28 oct '00)
You asked [in Ask Mother Knickerbocker] for words
introduced into English
derived in New York City. I
presume that since stoop and cookie are derived from the Dutch stoep and
cookje, that these came from New York as well.
Jeffrey Leeds
A Modest Petprosal
(5 oct '00)
On the one hand, you've got too many cats and dogs. On the other hand,
you have too many mice and rats. Doesn't the solution present itself?
Have the CITY adopt the animals, train them as mousers and ratters, and
do away with the spraying programs. Fewer harmful chemicals in the
environment, dogs and cats doing what comes naturally (hunting prey--in
this case, pests). Everybody's happy!
But I am glad Mayor Guiliani banned the gliding lemurs. God, was I ever sick of having gliding lemurs all over the city, gliding this way, gliding that way. Well, you don't see any of them now, do you?
J.D. Henry
Judge Not!
(18 sep '00)
Thank you for your informative article on New York City judicial elections
("Judges" by Mark Berkey-Gerard, 11 Sept. 00). I would like to correct the
record, however, and inform your readers that, in constrast to my opponents
and the close ties they had to the clubs and politicians that endorsed
them,
I had no ties whatsoever to the political clubs that endorsed my candidacy
(Stonewall Democratic Club and the United Democratic Organization of
Chinatown).
Barbara Jaffe
Belabor It!
(16 sep '00)
I was so thrilled to see Gotham Gazette's weekly piece on the subject
of the strength of labor unions. Too often, on-line news fails to
consider a labor pespective. Publlications like yourself need to
continue to cover labor issues. If you were to do a weekly column on
labor, workers would log on.
Heather Beaudoin
Don't Book Him Yet
Just for the record [Today's Lead Story: "Brooklyn Library Porn" Week of August 21]
(31 aug '00)
It makes for a good Oliver Stone-like conspiracy, but much like the
aforementioned filmaker's work, this "chronology" angle departs from
reality
in a big way. There was no sitting, planning or plotting. In fact, the
Administration did not support my legislation in February. I am not a
one trick pony. When all is said and done, even the critics will see
that my appointment will be a good thing for the Brooklyn Public
Library.
James Oddo
Oddo (R-C) is the City Councilmember representing the 50th district, which covers parts of Staten Island and Brooklyn.
The New Ethnic Politics
(11 aug '00)
As the elected official who represents (last election without any opposition)
the most racially and ethnically diverse district in the city, I think the
key to anyone's success in the near future is the cobbling together of
different groups into a winning coalition. [The New Ethnic Politics, Issue
of the Week, August 7th, 2000]
The example you cite in the 34 Assembly District shows that even within the Latin American community, ethnic divisions exist. Reaching out to others will be critical for all serious candidates.
John Sabini
Sabini is the City Council member representing the 25th district in Queens, which covers Jackson Heights, Elmhurst, Corona, Woodside, East Elmhurst and Rego Park.
Water Runs Deep
(25 jul '00)
Regarding Peter Fleischer's article ('The City's Crowded Waterways'); several corrections should be made. I am President of the Working Waterfront Association. Working Waterfront Association is "leading the effort" to reduce waterways conflicts with our 'Committee for Harbor Safety'. The Committee is an initiative developed by WWA in partnership with the Coast Guard to bring together harbor users that 'fall between the cracks' of traditional waterways safety and management efforts, in a regular open forum.
Our Committee has been so successful that we were asked to become a formal subcommittee of the long-standing 'Harbor Operations, Safety and Navigation Committee of the Port of NY/NJ'. Our committee has been in operation for a year and a half, and is attended by a broad spectrum of Port stakeholders including; kayakers, fast ferries, dinner boats, environmentalists, recreational and commercial facility operators, regulatory and enforcement agencies, and elected officials.
We, at Working Waterfront Association are very proud of these accomplishment since they have all been achieved by volunteer efforts up to this point. The brief mention of our programs don't do justice to the enormous collective effort required to put aside personal agendas for a more cooperative relationship between seeming conflicting uses.
The Working Waterfront Association provides on-going education programs and develops important new initiatives that foster intelligent waterfront planning, safety, and access for New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary.
Since not-for-profit organizations live or die on their reputations, as well as their abilities to provide needed programs and services, I felt obligated to expand on an issue that is critical if we are to safely share our limited resources.
Very sincerely,
Adam Brown, President Working Waterfront Association Chair, Committee for Harbor Safety
Hudson River Park and others
(10 jul '00)
I am the Chair of the Hudson River Park Alliance and write in reference to the article on Waterfront Parks in the July 1 issue of the Gotham Gazette.
It is always galling to come upon articles that describe Hudson River Park in the opponents' terms and, subtly or not so subtly, reflect a bias against the Park. This is done by couching the debate as a contest or tension between "park and commercial." E.g., in your piece on waterfront parks, specifically referencing Hudson River Park, the following:
Others aren't so sure. To them, the parks look more like "development." . . . Opponents of the Hudson River Park, for example, have dismissed it as a "$400 million boondoggle" for politically connected contractors and developers"
What is extraordinary, beyond the bias, is that the identified positions have so little to do with the facts. And these are the facts. Indeed, they are not only the facts -- they are the law under the Hudson River Park Act.
The only possible areas of commercial development in Hudson River Park are the following:
1. The Circle Line/World Yacht Piers (Piers 81 and 83). These, of course, already exist, so the Park is in no way creating them. And who, in any event, would argue that the Circle Line and the other harbor sightseeing operations should be eliminated?
2. The Ferry Terminals at Pier 78 and 79. Here again, these piers are already being used commercially. They are not being developed to finance the Park. They are what they are because ferry service has become so important to Manhattahn. Would anyone argue that it should be abandonned? The groups which complain about "development" in the Park are the same groups that have campaigned ardently against further auto traffic into the City. Ferries cut back auto trips.
3. Chelsea Piers (Piers 59, 60 and 61). These piers already exist as a commercial development under a 45 year lease. Again, they are not being created commercial to finance the Park -- they were developed and have existed well before the Park. And the lease entitles them to remain for its full term. That aside, many people think that the recreational development of Chelsea Piers is a very good use. It certainly is popular and serves millions every year. The alternative, put forward by Abe Hirshfied, was for warehouses, office and the like -- far more private than Chelsea Piers.
4. Pier 40. This 14-acre piers is currently being used 100% for commercial use -- specifically, as a parking garage and for Fed Ex and Airborne Express distribution centers. So this commercial likewise exists already, not as a result of the Park. What the Park will do is to convert at least half of these 14 acres to park open space. That is the law -- what is required under the Hudson River Park Act, which the park opponents opposed. That's right -- those who say the Park would be a commercial development opposed the law that requires that half of Pier 40 and 100% of 17 other piers be open park space. In any case, what the Park will do then at Pier 40 is cut commercial development back by 50% and replace it with open park areas.
5. Pier 57. This is currently 100% developed and used as a bus garage. Its future use has not been determined, but it could just as easily end up being half or more park space as the 100% commercial it is today. In any case, there will no increase in development here.
That's it. The bottom line. There will be no development or commercial use in Hudson River Park except in the existing commercial areas identified above (and several of these will be cut back, so there will be less development than exists now along the waterfront). All the remaining piers will be park spaces -- this is required under the law. No development, commercial or otherwise, is permitted on these piers, so there is no threat of expansion. That is one reason why the Hudson River Park Alliance and so many other groups campaigned to get the Hudson River Park Act.
The other was to protect the fisheries habitat, which the Act also does by forbidding filling and platforming. And the park will do that by rebuilding existing piers in place (for park use only) and actually cutting back on existing incursions. The Corps of Engineers recognized this in granting the recent permit for work in the water. But it is not only the Corps that has reached this conclusion. All three Federal fisheries agencies -- the US Environmental Protection Agency, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the Fish & Wildlife Service -- supported the decision and the proposed work. Indeed, the National Marine Fisheries Service concluded that the work would actually protect the habitat by maintaining the piers upon which the striped bass depend for winter protection.
I have yet to hear a reasoned argument that supports any of the opponents' positions. Even in the Park debate referenced in the Gazette, Michael Rivlin, who chastised me, agreed that the park project would not have a lasting effect on the habitat and that the park would be a boon for New Yorkers. Yet despite this, the opponents' language continues to be placed front and center in the Gazette, as if there is some superior truth in their position, when, in fact, the opposite is true.
It is all very well to say that both sides deserve to be heard. But when editorial policy tilts in the direction of the untruth, democracy is left on unfirm ground.
Al Butzel
New York, City of Kindness
(10 jul '00)
We live in a rural community of about 800 called Scio, Ohio. Our son, David
E. Craig, is stationed aboard the USS Underwood, which participated in Op
Sail 2000. I wish to thank all the kind people that made our naval personnel
so welcome in your community. My son remarked about the friendliness of the
people he met. Thank you for your hospitality.
Donald and Becky Craig
No More Moo!
(7 jun '00)
In the middle of a City budget negotiations with millions at stake for the cultural community, you focus on the Cow Parade! [Arts topic news story for June] Is there any other area of the city's life that you take so lightly? Tongue in cheek is one thing. A lack of substance is another. And, did you overlook, just not know, or not care, that New York City, unlike Chicago, insisted that artists agree to avoid certain depictions, primarily sexually explicit, in order to be part of the Cow Parade? Somehow I thought censorship or budget decisions might be a civic matter. Guess not.
Norma P. Munn, Chair, New York City Arts Coalition
The Community Service Society Responds
(18 may '00)
The Community Service Society issued a
report last month that compared New
York City poverty in the late 1990s with poverty the last time the city
economy was in full bloom, the late 1980s. We found some surprising things.
Poverty rates had risen for families who were once largely immune from
being poor; families that include a household head with more than a high
school education, families that include a worker, and families that have
fathers as well as mothers. We also found that these kinds of families are
an increasing share of the city's poor.
Obviously the Gotham Gazette's Emmanuel Tobier has a problem with our report. Fair enough. But it would better the level of public discourse if he presented evidence that actually contradicted our analysis. Tobier finds that city-wide poverty rate has declined since the mid-1990s, so does the Current Population Survey. Poverty rates typically rise and fall with the business cycle. The question we raised, however, is why -- when we place comparable points in the business cycle side by side -- do things in the 1990s look different than they did in the 1980s?
Emmanuel Tobier also has a problem with the CSS agenda. What is it? Tobier provides a (partial) list: more access to Food Stamps, Medicaid, and childcare, and a higher minimum wage. Rather than name call, Tobier would serve your readership by simply explaining which of these he finds objectionable and why.
Readers who want a first hand account of the CSS report are welcome to find it at www.cssny.org.
Mark Levitan,
Senior Policy Analyst,
Community Service Society of New York
Community Gardens
(28 apr '00)
Recently, it was reported that over a hundred, NYC neighborhood community
gardens are in danger of being razed. At the same time, certain
architectural poobahs claim the Internet is making public space obsolete.
New zoning rules are emerging, and no one seems to really understand what
impact the new rules will have on urban habitat. It's seems that certain NYC
leaders consider the built environment the only value. The built environment
cannot function to its highest level without an appropriate amount of
"unbuilt" or natural environment, (parks, plazas, greenspaces, street trees)
interspersed in every neighborhood.
Public spaces are an important economic element, without which the economics of the built environment suffer. Without them, we create places where people don't want to live. We cannot allow our leaders to pretend that life on earth consists entirely of cubicles. What is the future vision of these leaders? A square, concrete Earth?
Art Lewellan
Portland, Oregon
NYC Comptroller Alan Hevesi Tells the Gazette About A New Design for Sanitation Trucks:
(12 apr '00)
Gotham Gazette must be congratulated for making solid waste management the April 10, 2000 Issue of the Week. Indeed, with the pending closure of the City's only waste disposal facility, the Staten Island Fresh Kills landfill, solid waste management is fast becoming a major infrastructure issue for New York City.
Since waste export is here to stay, we need to ensure that we are creating a system that is equitable, efficient and fairly priced. Gotham Gazette rightly notes that "the transfer station system works badly and faces ongoing attack." Part of the opposition is due to the dumping and reloading of waste, a process that is rife with noxious impacts on a host community.
I have proposed an innovative truck technology to help address these problems and to provide an alternative to building new waste transfer stations to process the City's municipal waste. At my request, a new Sanitation collection truck has been designed. This truck would internally containerize compacted waste, close the container after the waste has been collected, and allow the container to be removed for export on rail or ship at an existing transfer station in an odor-free and nuisance-free manner. The complete text of my proposal is on my website.
Alan G. Hevesi
New York City Comptroller
Watershed
(15 mar '00)
Al Appleton posits that either we either protect or filter the New York
City water supply. According to a recent report of the National Academy of
Sciences, both may be necessary. The NRC Report also points out that the
cleaner the water going into a filter, the less costly the process. The
city already has to filter the ten percent supplied by the Croton system.
Appleton is correct that those of us who consume and pay for the water need
better information and leadership from governmental officials. However EPA
is not the agency empowered to do this in an era of devolution of power to
the states.
Marjorie Kelleher Shea,
Infrastructure Committee of the Women's City Club of NY
Great resource
(18 feb '00)
Hello! Thank you so much for your reply to my message seeking help in finding information on the Grand Concourse. I looked up the Bronx Historical Site and it has been pretty helpful in my research. To answer your question, I came across your website through the Lexus - Nexus database. I thought it was very informative and the By Boro section was a great place to begin my research. I believe your site was the one that had the representative contact information. That was great as because of this information I was able to email the Bronx representatives for their input on this topic as well! I also enjoyed just browsing through the site. Thank you again so much for your help in my research.
Krista Iverson
Fordham University
Re: Senator Schumer's speech at Crains
(21 jan '00)
Wait, a minute, Sen. Schumer said that NYC has "to make parts of Brooklyn and Queens" internet-ready in order to retain e-businesses? Does this mean The Bronx and Staten Island won't enjoy the fruits of this boom? How about some thoughtful and equitable thinking on this subject?
The truth is that real estate is cheaper in The Bronx than any other borough. We have the square footage, transportation access, and an eager workforce. And, hey, we're on the United States mainland! A hi-tech zone in the South Bronx. Now that would be visionary.
Paul Lipson
Executive Director
THE POINT CDC
Read the Senator's speech here.
Re: Vallone
City Council Speaker Peter Vallone has called for more private-sector involvement in development of new city schools. Even without the details of the proposal, it's hard to argue with the central idea. As the Speaker said of private developers, "Let us bring in their skills - their proven ability to meet construction deadlines, and keep within budgets."
Public construction in New York City, and throughout New York State, is wastefully expensive and often takes far too long, partly because of state mandates imposed over many years by governors and legislators in Albany. Privatization is an increasingly attractive solution.
The Niagara Falls school district is nearing completion of a new high school that's being built by a private company and will be leased back to the district. The city school district received special authorization from the state Legislature. In Buffalo, city and school leaders are planning a similar request to Governor Pataki and lawmakers, based partly on what they've observed in their neighboring city.
All of these plans are innovative and useful. Unfortunately, what they really indicate is that there are fundamental problems with public construction laws in New York. One problem is our prevailing-wage law, which requires union wage on every project even if an experienced, qualified non-union firm wins the contract. This law not only drives the cost up by 20-40 percent, it also makes the process much more complicated and reduces the number of firms competing for projects. (Many studies suggest that prevailing-wage laws are especially harmful to minority-owned contracting companies.)
The other state law that creates problems is the Wicks Law, which requires multiple contractors -- again, driving up costs and creating needless complexity. Governor Pataki's new Executive Budget includes a proposal to exempt all school construction from Wicks. Taxpayer savings in New York City, alone, would likely total hundreds of millions of dollars in coming years. Equally important, given the growing need for classrooms in the city, eliminating Wicks would speed up completion of new space for school kids.
Robert Ward
Director of Research
Public Policy Institute of New York State Inc.
GothGaz: a source
(2 nov '99)
Thank you for launching the Gotham Gazette. It is already an important
source of news for insiders, and seems to be getting steadily more
influential. It is also fun to gobble down each day.
The Gazette would be much more valuable as a research and policy tool if articles included basic facts like this. Make your writers and beat reporters provide specific facts, stats, budget numbers. This is the kind of stuff issue experts writing intros should know cold - as should the contributors. After one year, 52 "Issues of Week" will amount to a hefty amount of research and analysis on issues of the day. Best makes sure basic facts are included for each issue. Maybe a stats/ facts box with the issues intro would do the trick.
My two cents on the Gazette. Keep up the great work.
John Kaehny
Executive Director
Transportation Alternatives
Re: Buses and the MTA
(30 sep '99) Hey, kudos for noting the dismal number of diesel busses in the MTA capital plan! That's what I'm talking about!
Dan Klotz
New York League of Conservation Voters
Great job, site, wow!
(30 sep '99) Keep up the good work, your commentary is cutting edge.
Vince McGowan
(29 sep '99)
Hey, congrats on Gotham. Already indispensable.
All best,
Steve Gorelick
CUNY Graduate Center
(22 sep '99)
The Gotham Gazette is great. The news clips are surprisingly timely and
informative and the Website is also great.
Thank you for sending The Eye Opener every morning.
Peter K. Wallace
Naval Architect
Universe Tankships (Delaware) LLC
(17 sep '99)
Congratulations on the Gazette, and thanks for putting me on the mailing
list. I've been enjoying it. Great to see so much lively stuff about NYC.
John Tierney
New York Times




