Responding to a lawsuit filed by the Yonkers Board of Education which seeks to block the Yonkers Inspector General from auditing the books of the Yonkers Board of Education, Councilman John Murtagh (R-5) said today that he will call upon his City Council colleagues to defer approval of the Board’s $25million dollar borrowing plan which the Council was to have voted on next Tuesday. The Board of Education, in a recent change of policy, has taken the position that it is not subject to the jurisdiction of the Inspector General. It was recently disclosed that on September 29, 2009 the Board filed suit in New York State Supreme Court seeking a declaration of its right to deny review of its books and records.
“As elected officials we are responsible to the taxpayers for knowing how their money is spent” Murtagh said, “ our school system receives nearly half a billion dollars in taxpayer money every year yet refuses to open its books to review. Until the Board of Education is prepared to acknowledge the taxpayers’ right to know how their money is spent we cannot in good conscience continue to allow the Board to just borrow and spend”.
“The Inspector General conducts audits and investigations at the request of the Mayor and the Council”, Murtagh noted. “The Mayor and the Council answer to the citizens and taxpayers. Thus, the School Board has really filed suit against the people of Yonkers. Until we get a satisfactory answer to why the Board refuses to open its financial books and records, we should not continue to hand it blank checks”.
Murtagh said he would also be submitting a Resolution to the Council urging that it instruct its attorneys to move to intervene in the Board’s lawsuit in support of the Inspector General.
“Year in and year out our Trustees and Superintendent cry poverty, yet they now find the money to hire a Manhattan law firm to bring wasteful and counter-productive litigation against the City”, Murtagh concluded. “Their actions are frivolous and wrongheaded and, worse, jeopardize the interests of our school children”.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Saturday, August 15, 2009
TODAY'S JOURNAL NEWS ARTICLE ON LANDMARKING CONTROVERSY
http://www.lohud.com/article/20090815/NEWS02/908150332/1018/NEWS02
Thursday, August 13, 2009
TODAY'S PRESS RELEASE ON LANDMARKING
MURTAGH RECONSIDERING SUPPORT FOR SFC
DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Proposal to gut City landmarks protection leads Councilman to rethink support for redevelopment
Yonkers City Councilman John Murtagh (R-5) said today that a proposal to rewrite the City’s Landmarks Preservation law has led him to begin rethinking his support for the current proposal to redevelop downtown Yonkers.
The so-called “SFC” project which would include the redevelopment of parcels on both the Yonkers waterfront and its downtown is presently before the City Council for approval.
Murtagh, acknowledging that up to this point he had been strongly inclined to support the project, said that the current Mayoral proposal to limit the role of the Landmarks Board in redevelopment and to give the Planning Board an automatic veto over all Landmarks Board actions has led him to question his earlier support.
“Up to this point I have been able to support this project confident that a process was firmly in place to protect the many historical and significant sites throughout downtown Yonkers” Murtagh said. “After reviewing the proposal that is before the Charter Commission, I no longer have that confidence”.
Currently if the Landmarks Board proposes a site for Landmarking, the Board then refers the issue to the City Council which has the ultimate say. Under the proposal currently before the Charter Commission a proposal from the Landmarks Board would first go to the Planning Board which could veto the proposal before it ever reached the City Council for consideration thereby completely removing the City Council from the decision making process.
“Previously I was comfortable supporting the current development proposal with the knowledge that the Landmarks Board and the Council would have the ability to protect historic and significant structures from the wrecking ball” Murtagh said. “Under the current proposal we would lose that ability. I am simply not comfortable signing off on a project that would give the Administration and developers sole discretion to knock down every building they choose”. Murtagh concluded: “Unlike surrounding communities such as White Plains, Yonkers is still fortunate to have many older buildings that can be an integral part of a revitalized downtown. I now have to think long and hard about supporting this project when there is a risk that downtown Yonkers will simply become another stretch of soulless big box and chain stores”.
DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Proposal to gut City landmarks protection leads Councilman to rethink support for redevelopment
Yonkers City Councilman John Murtagh (R-5) said today that a proposal to rewrite the City’s Landmarks Preservation law has led him to begin rethinking his support for the current proposal to redevelop downtown Yonkers.
The so-called “SFC” project which would include the redevelopment of parcels on both the Yonkers waterfront and its downtown is presently before the City Council for approval.
Murtagh, acknowledging that up to this point he had been strongly inclined to support the project, said that the current Mayoral proposal to limit the role of the Landmarks Board in redevelopment and to give the Planning Board an automatic veto over all Landmarks Board actions has led him to question his earlier support.
“Up to this point I have been able to support this project confident that a process was firmly in place to protect the many historical and significant sites throughout downtown Yonkers” Murtagh said. “After reviewing the proposal that is before the Charter Commission, I no longer have that confidence”.
Currently if the Landmarks Board proposes a site for Landmarking, the Board then refers the issue to the City Council which has the ultimate say. Under the proposal currently before the Charter Commission a proposal from the Landmarks Board would first go to the Planning Board which could veto the proposal before it ever reached the City Council for consideration thereby completely removing the City Council from the decision making process.
“Previously I was comfortable supporting the current development proposal with the knowledge that the Landmarks Board and the Council would have the ability to protect historic and significant structures from the wrecking ball” Murtagh said. “Under the current proposal we would lose that ability. I am simply not comfortable signing off on a project that would give the Administration and developers sole discretion to knock down every building they choose”. Murtagh concluded: “Unlike surrounding communities such as White Plains, Yonkers is still fortunate to have many older buildings that can be an integral part of a revitalized downtown. I now have to think long and hard about supporting this project when there is a risk that downtown Yonkers will simply become another stretch of soulless big box and chain stores”.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
MY REMARKS AT TONIGHT'S CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING
REMARKS TO THE YONKERS CHARTER REVISION COMMISSION, AUGUST 12, 2009
John M. Murtagh
Members of the Commission,
I need not tell you where I stand on this very misguided proposal. My record in favor of historic preservation is a long one.
Nevertheless, I do feel a record must be made.
The current proposal is wrong on many levels.
In the first place it is, frankly, an insult and an affront to the good, dedicated and knowledgeable members of our Landmarks Board everyone of them a volunteer serving for no other reason than a love for and a concern for this City and its many and varied neighborhoods.
Secondly, it is nothing but a bald attempt to usurp the power of the City Council, to place the Planning Board in the role of exercising veto power over decisions of the Landmarks Board before they ever reach the desks of those of us elected to represent the very neighborhoods impacted.
Thirdly, I believe this proposal is an ill-conceived knee jerk response to the Council’s vote to create the Phillipse Manor Historic District. That single vote, taken with the unanimous support of the Landmarks Board is, to my knowledge, the first time that this or any Landmarks Board in Yonkers or any City Council has exercised the Landmarking power in a manner that directly impacted a significant development project…and what was the immediate reaction…in effect, if you can’t beat them, kill them. In this case, effectively kill the Landmarks Board...and yes, it simply cannot be ignored that the Chairman of this commission is also the President of the property owner most impacted by the creation of the Phillipse Manor District. I say that not as some ad-hominem attack but merely as a statement of fact. I might add that since the landmarking, Greyston has appeared to work in good faith to achieve a workable compromise at that sit. Nevertheless, one can’t but suspect a bit of payback in this proposal.
Fourth, as a procedural matter, I believe some clarification is necessary. You sit as a “Charter” revision commission. Yet, the Landmarks ordinance and the statute which creates and enables the Landmarks Board is not in our Charter, but in our Code. You are not a “Code” revision commission. Indeed, the Code, to my knowledge, is the jurisdiction of the elected City Council and not this appointed Board.
These are specific criticisms, but the real issue is more fundamental and much broader…and that is: What direction will we take as a City as we redevelop? Unlike many of our neighbors – White Plains and Stamford Connecticut come to mind- we still have many of our old, historic and significant buildings and neighborhoods intact. When those cities remade there downtowns years and even decades ago, they did so with a wrecking ball and a bulldozer and no appreciation for the treasures they were leveling. For reasons political and otherwise, Yonkers missed those building booms of decades past. But as a result, we now have the opportunity to do better, to appreciate our history, our heritage and the fabric of our communities and to weave something better from that fabric by combining the best of the old and the new. We have a simple philosophical choice. Do we celebrate our heritage and preserve our history or do we bulldoze that history, blacktop that heritage and create yet another cookie cutter city? Do we recognize the extraordinary value of what we have and make it an integral part of a revitalized Yonkers or do we simply create acres more of glass, steel and concrete indistinguishable from New Roc City, the City Center in White Plains or Summer Street in Stamford?
Let me close tonight by quoting someone who said it all long ago and better than me. Jane Jacobs was no expert, no architect or engineer, no City Planner or developer. She was a housewife on Hudson Street in Greenwich Village fifty years ago when Robert Moses proposed bulldozing most of the West Village including Washington Square Park to build a highway across Manhattan from New Jersey to Long Island. Jane Jacobs a simple housewife took Moses on and won. Later, in her seminal book, the Death and Life of the American City here is what she said:
Cities need old buildings so badly it is probably impossible for vigorous streets and districts to grow without them. By old buildings I mean not museum-piece old buildings, not old buildings in an excellent and expensive state of rehabilitation–although these make fine ingredients–but also a good lot of plain, ordinary old buildings….
If a city area has only new buildings, the enterprises that can exist there are automatically limited to those that can support the high costs of new construction. These high costs of occupying new buildings may be levied in the form of an owner’s interest and amortization payments on the capital costs of the construction. However the costs are paid off, they have to be paid off. And for this reason, enterprises that support the cost of new construction must be capable of paying a relatively high overhead–high in comparison to that necessarily required by old buildings. To support such high overheads, the enterprises must be either (a) high profit or (b) well subsidized.
If you look about, you will see that only operations that are well established, high-turnover, standardized or heavily subsidized can afford, commonly, to carry the costs of new construction. Chain stores, chain restaurants and banks go into new construction. But neighborhood bars, foreign restaurants and small shops go into older buildings. . . . Well-subsidized opera and art museums often go into new buildings. But the unformalized feeders of the arts–studios, galleries, stores for musical instruments and art supplies, backrooms where the low earning power of a seat and a table can absorb uneconomic discussions–these go into old buildings. Perhaps more significant, hundreds of ordinary enterprises, necessary to the safety and public life of streets and neighborhoods, and appreciated for their convenience and personal quality, can make out successfully in old buildings, but are inexorably slain by the high overhead of new construction.
As for really new ideas of any kind–no matter how ultimately profitable or otherwise successful some of them might prove to be–there is no leeway for such chancy trial, error and experimentation in the high-overhead economy of new construction. Old ideas can sometimes use new buildings. New ideas must use old buildings.
Thank you.
John M. Murtagh
Members of the Commission,
I need not tell you where I stand on this very misguided proposal. My record in favor of historic preservation is a long one.
Nevertheless, I do feel a record must be made.
The current proposal is wrong on many levels.
In the first place it is, frankly, an insult and an affront to the good, dedicated and knowledgeable members of our Landmarks Board everyone of them a volunteer serving for no other reason than a love for and a concern for this City and its many and varied neighborhoods.
Secondly, it is nothing but a bald attempt to usurp the power of the City Council, to place the Planning Board in the role of exercising veto power over decisions of the Landmarks Board before they ever reach the desks of those of us elected to represent the very neighborhoods impacted.
Thirdly, I believe this proposal is an ill-conceived knee jerk response to the Council’s vote to create the Phillipse Manor Historic District. That single vote, taken with the unanimous support of the Landmarks Board is, to my knowledge, the first time that this or any Landmarks Board in Yonkers or any City Council has exercised the Landmarking power in a manner that directly impacted a significant development project…and what was the immediate reaction…in effect, if you can’t beat them, kill them. In this case, effectively kill the Landmarks Board...and yes, it simply cannot be ignored that the Chairman of this commission is also the President of the property owner most impacted by the creation of the Phillipse Manor District. I say that not as some ad-hominem attack but merely as a statement of fact. I might add that since the landmarking, Greyston has appeared to work in good faith to achieve a workable compromise at that sit. Nevertheless, one can’t but suspect a bit of payback in this proposal.
Fourth, as a procedural matter, I believe some clarification is necessary. You sit as a “Charter” revision commission. Yet, the Landmarks ordinance and the statute which creates and enables the Landmarks Board is not in our Charter, but in our Code. You are not a “Code” revision commission. Indeed, the Code, to my knowledge, is the jurisdiction of the elected City Council and not this appointed Board.
These are specific criticisms, but the real issue is more fundamental and much broader…and that is: What direction will we take as a City as we redevelop? Unlike many of our neighbors – White Plains and Stamford Connecticut come to mind- we still have many of our old, historic and significant buildings and neighborhoods intact. When those cities remade there downtowns years and even decades ago, they did so with a wrecking ball and a bulldozer and no appreciation for the treasures they were leveling. For reasons political and otherwise, Yonkers missed those building booms of decades past. But as a result, we now have the opportunity to do better, to appreciate our history, our heritage and the fabric of our communities and to weave something better from that fabric by combining the best of the old and the new. We have a simple philosophical choice. Do we celebrate our heritage and preserve our history or do we bulldoze that history, blacktop that heritage and create yet another cookie cutter city? Do we recognize the extraordinary value of what we have and make it an integral part of a revitalized Yonkers or do we simply create acres more of glass, steel and concrete indistinguishable from New Roc City, the City Center in White Plains or Summer Street in Stamford?
Let me close tonight by quoting someone who said it all long ago and better than me. Jane Jacobs was no expert, no architect or engineer, no City Planner or developer. She was a housewife on Hudson Street in Greenwich Village fifty years ago when Robert Moses proposed bulldozing most of the West Village including Washington Square Park to build a highway across Manhattan from New Jersey to Long Island. Jane Jacobs a simple housewife took Moses on and won. Later, in her seminal book, the Death and Life of the American City here is what she said:
Cities need old buildings so badly it is probably impossible for vigorous streets and districts to grow without them. By old buildings I mean not museum-piece old buildings, not old buildings in an excellent and expensive state of rehabilitation–although these make fine ingredients–but also a good lot of plain, ordinary old buildings….
If a city area has only new buildings, the enterprises that can exist there are automatically limited to those that can support the high costs of new construction. These high costs of occupying new buildings may be levied in the form of an owner’s interest and amortization payments on the capital costs of the construction. However the costs are paid off, they have to be paid off. And for this reason, enterprises that support the cost of new construction must be capable of paying a relatively high overhead–high in comparison to that necessarily required by old buildings. To support such high overheads, the enterprises must be either (a) high profit or (b) well subsidized.
If you look about, you will see that only operations that are well established, high-turnover, standardized or heavily subsidized can afford, commonly, to carry the costs of new construction. Chain stores, chain restaurants and banks go into new construction. But neighborhood bars, foreign restaurants and small shops go into older buildings. . . . Well-subsidized opera and art museums often go into new buildings. But the unformalized feeders of the arts–studios, galleries, stores for musical instruments and art supplies, backrooms where the low earning power of a seat and a table can absorb uneconomic discussions–these go into old buildings. Perhaps more significant, hundreds of ordinary enterprises, necessary to the safety and public life of streets and neighborhoods, and appreciated for their convenience and personal quality, can make out successfully in old buildings, but are inexorably slain by the high overhead of new construction.
As for really new ideas of any kind–no matter how ultimately profitable or otherwise successful some of them might prove to be–there is no leeway for such chancy trial, error and experimentation in the high-overhead economy of new construction. Old ideas can sometimes use new buildings. New ideas must use old buildings.
Thank you.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
THOUGHTS ON THE MAYOR'S PLAN TO GUT THE YONKERS LANDMARKS LAW
As Mayor Amicone lobbies to strip Yonkers' Landmarks Board of its vital role in redeveloping our historic downtown here are some interesting thoughts from the late urban advocate Jane Jacobs:
Cities need old buildings so badly it is probably impossible for vigorous streets and districts to grow without them. By old buildings I mean not museum-piece old buildings, not old buildings in an excellent and expensive state of rehabilitation–although these make fine ingredients–but also a good lot of plain, ordinary, low-value old buildings, including some rundown old buildings.
If a city area has only new buildings, the enterprises that can exist there are automatically limited to those that can support the high costs of new construction. These high costs of occupying new buildings may be levied in the form of an owner’s interest and amortization payments on the capital costs of the construction. However the costs are paid off, they have to be paid off. And for this reason, enterprises that support the cost of new construction must be capable of paying a relatively high overhead–high in comparison to that necessarily required by old buildings. To support such high overheads, the enterprises must be either (a) high profit or (b) well subsidized.
If you look about, you will see that only operations that are well established, high-turnover, standardized or heavily subsidized can afford, commonly, to carry the costs of new construction. Chain stores, chain restaurants and banks go into new construction. But neighborhood bars, foreign restaurants and pawn shops go into older buildings. . . . Well-subsidized opera and art museums often go into new buildings. But the unformalized feeders of the arts–studios, galleries, stores for musical instruments and art supplies, backrooms where the low earning power of a seat and a table can absorb uneconomic discussions–these go into old buildings. Perhaps more significant, hundreds of ordinary enterprises, necessary to the safety and public life of streets and neighborhoods, and appreciated for their convenience and personal quality, can make out successfully in old buildings, but are inexorably slain by the high overhead of new construction.
As for really new ideas of any kind–no matter how ultimately profitable or otherwise successful some of them might prove to be–there is no leeway for such chancy trial, error and experimentation in the high-overhead economy of new construction. Old ideas can sometimes use new buildings. New ideas must use old buildings.
Cities need old buildings so badly it is probably impossible for vigorous streets and districts to grow without them. By old buildings I mean not museum-piece old buildings, not old buildings in an excellent and expensive state of rehabilitation–although these make fine ingredients–but also a good lot of plain, ordinary, low-value old buildings, including some rundown old buildings.
If a city area has only new buildings, the enterprises that can exist there are automatically limited to those that can support the high costs of new construction. These high costs of occupying new buildings may be levied in the form of an owner’s interest and amortization payments on the capital costs of the construction. However the costs are paid off, they have to be paid off. And for this reason, enterprises that support the cost of new construction must be capable of paying a relatively high overhead–high in comparison to that necessarily required by old buildings. To support such high overheads, the enterprises must be either (a) high profit or (b) well subsidized.
If you look about, you will see that only operations that are well established, high-turnover, standardized or heavily subsidized can afford, commonly, to carry the costs of new construction. Chain stores, chain restaurants and banks go into new construction. But neighborhood bars, foreign restaurants and pawn shops go into older buildings. . . . Well-subsidized opera and art museums often go into new buildings. But the unformalized feeders of the arts–studios, galleries, stores for musical instruments and art supplies, backrooms where the low earning power of a seat and a table can absorb uneconomic discussions–these go into old buildings. Perhaps more significant, hundreds of ordinary enterprises, necessary to the safety and public life of streets and neighborhoods, and appreciated for their convenience and personal quality, can make out successfully in old buildings, but are inexorably slain by the high overhead of new construction.
As for really new ideas of any kind–no matter how ultimately profitable or otherwise successful some of them might prove to be–there is no leeway for such chancy trial, error and experimentation in the high-overhead economy of new construction. Old ideas can sometimes use new buildings. New ideas must use old buildings.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
A REFERENDUM ON OUR CITY'S HISTORY AND FUTURE
A Public Hearing has been scheduled by the Charter Revision Commission for August 4, 2009, between 7:00 - 9:00 PM, at City Hall - 40 South Broadway, in the Ceremonial Courtroom - 4th Floor.
The Charter Commission has proposed amending the City Code to strip the Yonkers Landmark's Board of essentially all of its authority. Specifically, it would subject every decision by the Landmark's Board to review by the Planning Board.
Not only would this change be a slap in the face of the dedicated volunteers serving as unpaid Landmark's Board members, it would also put at risk the history and heritage of our city.
This proposed change is really going to be a referendum on the direction our City takes as it redevelops. Will we do what other local cities, notably White Plains and Stamford Connecticut have done, bulldoze our downtown and pave over our history or will we recognize and celebrate our rich, nearly three hundred year history and make our historic properties an integral and beneficial part of our revitalized waterfront?
If, like me, you believe we need to preserve our history and, by doing so, make our redevelopment even more successful please make every effort to attend the Charter Commission Hearing and make your voice heard.
The Charter Commission has proposed amending the City Code to strip the Yonkers Landmark's Board of essentially all of its authority. Specifically, it would subject every decision by the Landmark's Board to review by the Planning Board.
Not only would this change be a slap in the face of the dedicated volunteers serving as unpaid Landmark's Board members, it would also put at risk the history and heritage of our city.
This proposed change is really going to be a referendum on the direction our City takes as it redevelops. Will we do what other local cities, notably White Plains and Stamford Connecticut have done, bulldoze our downtown and pave over our history or will we recognize and celebrate our rich, nearly three hundred year history and make our historic properties an integral and beneficial part of our revitalized waterfront?
If, like me, you believe we need to preserve our history and, by doing so, make our redevelopment even more successful please make every effort to attend the Charter Commission Hearing and make your voice heard.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
MR. MET TO VISIT YONKERS
Just for fun, for a change
With the Opening Day of Citi Field around the corner come meet
the Met's Superstar - Mr. Met himself. You've seen Mr. Met at the
games - now here's your chance to meet him in person. He'll be
stopping by the Citibank in Yonkers, so come in, say hello and
get your picture taken with him. There will be balloons, fresh
popcorn, give-a-ways, raffles and maybe even some other special guests...
They will also have baseball stress balls for autograph signing too.
Date: Friday, April 10th
Time: 2:30pm - 3:30pm
Price: Free
Location: Citibank Yonkers
86 Main Street (across from the Post Office and Yonkers Train Station)
Thursday, March 19, 2009
WITHOUT ENOUGH VOTES, COUNCIL PUNTS'TIL SATURDAY
Unable to secure the five votes necessary to push through questionable changes to the City's Empire Zone map last night, Council President Lesnick refused to allow a vote and adjourned the Special Council meeting he had called. The new meeting is now expected to be called for Saturday morning at 9 a.m. By adjourning until Saturday, Lesnick now needs only four votes under a Rule which provided that the five votes were necessary because the Council had the Legislation for less than eight days.
Mr. Lesnick cited "unanswered questions" as the reason for the adjournment. However, the one central question, how does the Cross County Shopping Center reasonably fit the criteria for Empire Zone benefits, still won't be answered by Saturday because it can't be.
At the hastily called Real Estate Committee meeting Tuesday night, Councilmembers spent at least an hour and one half trying to get the answer to that question from someone, the owner, the administration, anyone. Nobody had a straight answer. When asked why the shopping center should be in the Zone, all present numbly and repeatedly recited the litany of tax breaks and credits that the owner would receive as a result of Empire Zone designation. But the tax breaks are not the purpose of the Empire Zone...they are the means. The purpose is to attract or retain businesses in depressed and marginal neighborhoods where they either would not otherwise locate or might choose to leave. Cross County, a successful economic engine even before its present rehabilitation plan isn't planning to go anywhere.
There is simply no good reason to give it these tax breaks. New York State taxes, the highest in the nation, are a zero sum game. If Cross County gets a tax break, overall taxation in New York doesn't change. Someone else, another business or perhaps every New York homeowner just ends up paying the difference.
Mr. Lesnick cited "unanswered questions" as the reason for the adjournment. However, the one central question, how does the Cross County Shopping Center reasonably fit the criteria for Empire Zone benefits, still won't be answered by Saturday because it can't be.
At the hastily called Real Estate Committee meeting Tuesday night, Councilmembers spent at least an hour and one half trying to get the answer to that question from someone, the owner, the administration, anyone. Nobody had a straight answer. When asked why the shopping center should be in the Zone, all present numbly and repeatedly recited the litany of tax breaks and credits that the owner would receive as a result of Empire Zone designation. But the tax breaks are not the purpose of the Empire Zone...they are the means. The purpose is to attract or retain businesses in depressed and marginal neighborhoods where they either would not otherwise locate or might choose to leave. Cross County, a successful economic engine even before its present rehabilitation plan isn't planning to go anywhere.
There is simply no good reason to give it these tax breaks. New York State taxes, the highest in the nation, are a zero sum game. If Cross County gets a tax break, overall taxation in New York doesn't change. Someone else, another business or perhaps every New York homeowner just ends up paying the difference.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
COUNCIL BEING ASKED TO RUSH THROUGH EMPIRE ZONE CHANGES
In an e-mail sent late Wednesday, the City Council President informed the members of the Council for the first time that the Administration and the Economic Development Office were requesting Council action to change the City's Empire Zone map. The Empire Zone is a state program designed to create tax breaks and other incentives in order to attract new businesses to or to retain existing businesses in economically depressed areas of the City.
The Empire Zone program statewide has long been the subject of criticism for lax oversight and the failure to deliver the jobs and economic benefits promised.
In the present case, the proposal is, apparently, to take a portion of the "Ridge Hill" property, previously awarded an Empire Zone designation, out of the Empire Zone and then, in effect, reassign that amount of "Zone" to the Cross County shopping center and a portion of the SFC development. Of course, this is all conjecture since, as of this writing on Sunday night, the members of the Council have seen no specifics as to what is being proposed and what they are being asked to vote on. Of course, neither has the public. Nevertheless, the Administration and the Council President are asking that we vot on these changes on Wednesday night. So much for due diligence.
Meantime, even if we had seen the proposal already, the whole proposal begs the question how the Cross County shopping center qualifies for the program. It would certainly come as a surprise to its neighbors that they are in an economically depressed area with a high rate of poverty. To the contrary, the shopping center has been a money engine since it opened. Yes, it is getting a much needed upgrade, but economically depressed it isn't. Certainly, we are not in danger of it "leaving" the state.
Indeed, a telling Press Release, which may answer the question "why the rush?" was released on December 16, 2008 by Governor Patterson. In it he outlines his proposed reforms to the Empire Zone program. Among other things it states:
"Certain industry sectors such as utilities, retail and real estate, which are engaged in activities that make them unlikely to relocate outside of the state, would also be excluded from applying for [Empire Zone] certification in the future".
Retail? Real Estate? In other words, if the developer doesn't get the City Council to give him his tax breaks now, the proposed reforms may mean he never gets them in the future.
That appears to be what this is really all about.
The Empire Zone program statewide has long been the subject of criticism for lax oversight and the failure to deliver the jobs and economic benefits promised.
In the present case, the proposal is, apparently, to take a portion of the "Ridge Hill" property, previously awarded an Empire Zone designation, out of the Empire Zone and then, in effect, reassign that amount of "Zone" to the Cross County shopping center and a portion of the SFC development. Of course, this is all conjecture since, as of this writing on Sunday night, the members of the Council have seen no specifics as to what is being proposed and what they are being asked to vote on. Of course, neither has the public. Nevertheless, the Administration and the Council President are asking that we vot on these changes on Wednesday night. So much for due diligence.
Meantime, even if we had seen the proposal already, the whole proposal begs the question how the Cross County shopping center qualifies for the program. It would certainly come as a surprise to its neighbors that they are in an economically depressed area with a high rate of poverty. To the contrary, the shopping center has been a money engine since it opened. Yes, it is getting a much needed upgrade, but economically depressed it isn't. Certainly, we are not in danger of it "leaving" the state.
Indeed, a telling Press Release, which may answer the question "why the rush?" was released on December 16, 2008 by Governor Patterson. In it he outlines his proposed reforms to the Empire Zone program. Among other things it states:
"Certain industry sectors such as utilities, retail and real estate, which are engaged in activities that make them unlikely to relocate outside of the state, would also be excluded from applying for [Empire Zone] certification in the future".
Retail? Real Estate? In other words, if the developer doesn't get the City Council to give him his tax breaks now, the proposed reforms may mean he never gets them in the future.
That appears to be what this is really all about.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Council to review Comptroller's audit of Yonkers IDA
The NYS Comptroller recently issued his report of his audit of the Yonkers Industrial Development Agency. The City Council Municipal Operations Committee is planning a meeting to review the report. The time, date and location will be announced shortly. Meantime, the Comptroller's report and the City's response can be found here:
http://www.osc.state.ny.us/localgov/audits/others/2009/yonkersida.pdf
http://www.osc.state.ny.us/localgov/audits/others/2009/yonkersida.pdf
STATE LEADERS AVOID RESPONSIBLE DECISION MAKING
Governor Patterson held a press conference today to announce that, thanks to federal stimulus money, he was canceling proposed taxes on everything from soda to bowling to haircuts. Notice anything? Apparently the Governor (and the Senate and Assembly leaders who stood with him) think there are only two choices: federal aid or higher taxes. The third and best option – budget cuts – is apparently not even a consideration. Thus our Albany leadership is falling into exactly the trap many who questioned the size and scope of the Stimulus warned against. Instead of finally making the responsible decisions they have avoided for so long, our state leaders are just using the Stimulus money to delay the inevitable. Next year or the year after, the hole will be deeper and, barring a dramatic economic turnaround, the tax hikes will be even steeper.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Reassessment: An idea who's time should wait.
Last Wednesday I attended Council President Lesnick’s first “public meeting” to discuss property tax reassessment. The meeting was called on less than one week’s notice, it was not publicized but for a brief mention in the Journal News and it was held at 10 a.m. on a weekday morning (the week that the school’s were closed and children were home to boot). Not surprisingly, by my count fewer than twenty Yonkers’ households were represented. Other than me, reassessment proponents Council President Lesnick and Councilmember Gronowski were the only city officials present.
Lat night, I attended the regular meeting of the Nepara Park- Grey Oaks Homeowners Association. With just an announcement of the meeting in its newsletter, the Association turned out about 150 or more people for a lively discussion of reassessment. Present were three Councilmembers and the Mayor.
The message from the audience was clear. Now is just not the right time. With the economy struggling, people hurting and many worrying about job security, now is not the time to reassess and, inevitably, place a significantly higher tax burden on the majority of single family homeowners, many of them seniors.
What was also apparent was the lack of solid information. There are simply too many open questions about how reassessment would be accomplished, how it would impact the residents and whether it would even cure or exacerbate some problems, like the County tax levy. Now is not the time to rush such an important issue. It’s been over half a century since Yonkers’ last reassessment. That delay isn’t, by itself, an excuse to drag our feet. But it certainly means that we can wait a little longer, answer our own questions, answer the public’s questions and figure out what the real impact, good and bad, for this idea will be.
Lat night, I attended the regular meeting of the Nepara Park- Grey Oaks Homeowners Association. With just an announcement of the meeting in its newsletter, the Association turned out about 150 or more people for a lively discussion of reassessment. Present were three Councilmembers and the Mayor.
The message from the audience was clear. Now is just not the right time. With the economy struggling, people hurting and many worrying about job security, now is not the time to reassess and, inevitably, place a significantly higher tax burden on the majority of single family homeowners, many of them seniors.
What was also apparent was the lack of solid information. There are simply too many open questions about how reassessment would be accomplished, how it would impact the residents and whether it would even cure or exacerbate some problems, like the County tax levy. Now is not the time to rush such an important issue. It’s been over half a century since Yonkers’ last reassessment. That delay isn’t, by itself, an excuse to drag our feet. But it certainly means that we can wait a little longer, answer our own questions, answer the public’s questions and figure out what the real impact, good and bad, for this idea will be.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Reisman quotes City Journal essay
Taxpayers bear wounds of battles to stretch government revenues
By Phil Reisman
Journal News columnist • February 15, 2009
Last week, the White Plains City School District inked a $210,000-a-year contract with its new superintendent, which is fairly standard pay for first-year school chiefs these days.
At least it is in this neck of the woods.
Advertisement
But what caught my eye were some of the $47,000 worth of benefits attached to the deal. One of them was a $6,500 payment to Social Security - a perk which may or may not be unusual. In any case, it struck me as unfair that taxpayers would be required to assume a portion of a public official's tax burden.
There was also a $6,000 car allowance, $10,000 in moving expenses and assorted health benefits.
On top of 46 vacation, sick and personal days, the new "supe," Christopher Clouet, will get 15 holidays. That may seem like a lot of holidays, but all of them are legitimate.
There's nothing crazy in there like what the Malverne town police union on Long Island got away with until somebody blew the whistle on them. When no one was looking, the cops snuck in more than 20 extra "special days" - among them Elizabeth Cady Stanton Day, National Day of Katrina Remembrance, Children's Day, Haym Salomon Day, Shirley Chisholm Day and my personal favorite, Gerald Ford Day.
Perhaps in good times, no one would raise a fuss over the generosity afforded Clouet, who is getting a $78,000 raise over his previous post in the New London, Conn., school district.
But these are far from good times. Everybody's tapped, or fear they will be soon, and yet the demand for taxpayers' money is increasing at an alarming rate.
The same week Clouet's contract was announced, it was reported elsewhere that a proposed payroll tax to help solve the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's budget problems would cost White Plains schools $330,000. That would wipe out Clouet's pay and benefits package and probably the salaries of a couple of teacher aides as well.
There's mounting resistance to the payroll tax, which would be imposed on businesses, nonprofit groups, governmental agencies and school districts, and would raise $1.5 billion a year. For one thing, it's difficult to see how it won't result in more layoffs and contribute further to the state's downward spiral. More unemployed would mean fewer people paying fares and cause the MTA to fall into a self-perpetuating fix.
Nevertheless, if the MTA gets its way, you might think it would be appropriate for Clouet to at least pay his Social Security bill like everybody else. And what's with the car allowance?
This "shared sacrifice" idea sounds nice, but it's not going to come with altruistic glee. Just ask my barber Tony in Larchmont, who is understandably steamed over Gov. David Paterson's idea of a haircut tax.
The problem with surcharges like this is that they don't merely raise revenue, they change consumer behavior. If Paterson's goofy soda tax is intended to discourage fat kids from drinking liquefied sugar, then it's only logical to conclude that a tonsorial tax would cause people to grow their hair longer. We've already endured a dreary period of long-haired skinnies - it was called "The '60s."
And frankly, the Age of Aquarius wasn't at all what it was cracked up to be.
New York is in such lousy shape financially that the so-called "millionaire's tax" has devolved into a proposal to increase the tax rate on anybody earning $250,000 a year or more. This will be a hard sell, but if it succeeds, three things could happen as a result.
First, a good number of state residents will pack their golf clubs and golden retrievers and flee across the border to Canada or worse, New Jersey. Overnight, Bedford Hills will look like it was hit by a neutron bomb. Second, the diehards who stay behind will do something that heretofore was thought impossible: They will break the nearly 100 percent incumbency rate in Albany and throw half the bums out.
And third, Rudy Giuliani will become the next governor. (Yecch.)
Paterson's dream of shared sacrifice could work, however. But the trick is he can't raise taxes on the richest citizens without getting concessions from the state's unions. He's already asked them to give back a three-percent raise scheduled to take effect April 1 and defer five days' pay. They've all but told him to shove it.
Actually, those are modest proposals given the rate of layoffs, pay cuts and unpaid furloughs going on in the private sector. Elected officials at all levels of government should press public employees to pay more for health care and pension benefits, too. The scam of overtime to pad police and fire pensions is a scandal and should be reined in.
Of course, none of this can be easy in a state whose array of possible successors to Hillary Clinton's Senate seat included, of all people, Randi Weingarten, the president of the all-powerful teacher's union.
But the party is over, for everyone. That's been decided.
The question yet to be answered is how the ailing state can be cured without killing it.
In an article he wrote last week for the online City Journal, Yonkers City Councilman John Murtagh observed that the burdensome cost of doing business in New York was probably the reason a large employer, the Precision Valve Corp., recently decided to leave the city for the cheaper climes of South Carolina.
Murtagh, a Republican, listed the usual suspects. New York pays double the national average in Medicaid; overall per capita spending is the fourth highest in the U.S.; personal income taxes and real estate taxes are the highest in the country and so on.
"As a result," Murtagh wrote, "New York has seen a steady emigration of citizens and employers for years. In the current downturn, that emigration could turn into a stampede."
There's also a painful human side to this political battle that hasn't received the attention it deserves.
On Wednesday, Assemblyman George Latimer, D-Rye, hosted a community meeting in Larchmont to hear testimony from people affected by the state's planned budget cuts. Fifty-nine people spoke for four hours.
There were librarians, kids from youth groups, school board members and health care workers. A blind woman spoke as a did a woman with multiple sclerosis. Another woman got up and talked about being laid off from her Wall Street job.
A State University of New York student talked about how the poorest students could not afford the increase in state college tuition.
Somebody talked about the MTA payroll tax.
A Rye man stated the paradox of the need to raise local property taxes while cutting school spending because of the drop in state aid and the reduction in the mortgage-transfer tax revenue.
"As much as we're going to have make cuts because the numbers demand it, when you look in the eyes of these human beings, you feel a little differently about the bloodlessness of the numbers," Latimer said.
One final note: This column will be on hiatus through next week. While I'm off, I plan to celebrate Gerald Ford Day by misdirecting golf balls and falling down the stairs.
Reach Phil Reisman at preisman@lohud.com or call 914-694-5008. See more at reisman.lohudbogs.com.
By Phil Reisman
Journal News columnist • February 15, 2009
Last week, the White Plains City School District inked a $210,000-a-year contract with its new superintendent, which is fairly standard pay for first-year school chiefs these days.
At least it is in this neck of the woods.
Advertisement
But what caught my eye were some of the $47,000 worth of benefits attached to the deal. One of them was a $6,500 payment to Social Security - a perk which may or may not be unusual. In any case, it struck me as unfair that taxpayers would be required to assume a portion of a public official's tax burden.
There was also a $6,000 car allowance, $10,000 in moving expenses and assorted health benefits.
On top of 46 vacation, sick and personal days, the new "supe," Christopher Clouet, will get 15 holidays. That may seem like a lot of holidays, but all of them are legitimate.
There's nothing crazy in there like what the Malverne town police union on Long Island got away with until somebody blew the whistle on them. When no one was looking, the cops snuck in more than 20 extra "special days" - among them Elizabeth Cady Stanton Day, National Day of Katrina Remembrance, Children's Day, Haym Salomon Day, Shirley Chisholm Day and my personal favorite, Gerald Ford Day.
Perhaps in good times, no one would raise a fuss over the generosity afforded Clouet, who is getting a $78,000 raise over his previous post in the New London, Conn., school district.
But these are far from good times. Everybody's tapped, or fear they will be soon, and yet the demand for taxpayers' money is increasing at an alarming rate.
The same week Clouet's contract was announced, it was reported elsewhere that a proposed payroll tax to help solve the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's budget problems would cost White Plains schools $330,000. That would wipe out Clouet's pay and benefits package and probably the salaries of a couple of teacher aides as well.
There's mounting resistance to the payroll tax, which would be imposed on businesses, nonprofit groups, governmental agencies and school districts, and would raise $1.5 billion a year. For one thing, it's difficult to see how it won't result in more layoffs and contribute further to the state's downward spiral. More unemployed would mean fewer people paying fares and cause the MTA to fall into a self-perpetuating fix.
Nevertheless, if the MTA gets its way, you might think it would be appropriate for Clouet to at least pay his Social Security bill like everybody else. And what's with the car allowance?
This "shared sacrifice" idea sounds nice, but it's not going to come with altruistic glee. Just ask my barber Tony in Larchmont, who is understandably steamed over Gov. David Paterson's idea of a haircut tax.
The problem with surcharges like this is that they don't merely raise revenue, they change consumer behavior. If Paterson's goofy soda tax is intended to discourage fat kids from drinking liquefied sugar, then it's only logical to conclude that a tonsorial tax would cause people to grow their hair longer. We've already endured a dreary period of long-haired skinnies - it was called "The '60s."
And frankly, the Age of Aquarius wasn't at all what it was cracked up to be.
New York is in such lousy shape financially that the so-called "millionaire's tax" has devolved into a proposal to increase the tax rate on anybody earning $250,000 a year or more. This will be a hard sell, but if it succeeds, three things could happen as a result.
First, a good number of state residents will pack their golf clubs and golden retrievers and flee across the border to Canada or worse, New Jersey. Overnight, Bedford Hills will look like it was hit by a neutron bomb. Second, the diehards who stay behind will do something that heretofore was thought impossible: They will break the nearly 100 percent incumbency rate in Albany and throw half the bums out.
And third, Rudy Giuliani will become the next governor. (Yecch.)
Paterson's dream of shared sacrifice could work, however. But the trick is he can't raise taxes on the richest citizens without getting concessions from the state's unions. He's already asked them to give back a three-percent raise scheduled to take effect April 1 and defer five days' pay. They've all but told him to shove it.
Actually, those are modest proposals given the rate of layoffs, pay cuts and unpaid furloughs going on in the private sector. Elected officials at all levels of government should press public employees to pay more for health care and pension benefits, too. The scam of overtime to pad police and fire pensions is a scandal and should be reined in.
Of course, none of this can be easy in a state whose array of possible successors to Hillary Clinton's Senate seat included, of all people, Randi Weingarten, the president of the all-powerful teacher's union.
But the party is over, for everyone. That's been decided.
The question yet to be answered is how the ailing state can be cured without killing it.
In an article he wrote last week for the online City Journal, Yonkers City Councilman John Murtagh observed that the burdensome cost of doing business in New York was probably the reason a large employer, the Precision Valve Corp., recently decided to leave the city for the cheaper climes of South Carolina.
Murtagh, a Republican, listed the usual suspects. New York pays double the national average in Medicaid; overall per capita spending is the fourth highest in the U.S.; personal income taxes and real estate taxes are the highest in the country and so on.
"As a result," Murtagh wrote, "New York has seen a steady emigration of citizens and employers for years. In the current downturn, that emigration could turn into a stampede."
There's also a painful human side to this political battle that hasn't received the attention it deserves.
On Wednesday, Assemblyman George Latimer, D-Rye, hosted a community meeting in Larchmont to hear testimony from people affected by the state's planned budget cuts. Fifty-nine people spoke for four hours.
There were librarians, kids from youth groups, school board members and health care workers. A blind woman spoke as a did a woman with multiple sclerosis. Another woman got up and talked about being laid off from her Wall Street job.
A State University of New York student talked about how the poorest students could not afford the increase in state college tuition.
Somebody talked about the MTA payroll tax.
A Rye man stated the paradox of the need to raise local property taxes while cutting school spending because of the drop in state aid and the reduction in the mortgage-transfer tax revenue.
"As much as we're going to have make cuts because the numbers demand it, when you look in the eyes of these human beings, you feel a little differently about the bloodlessness of the numbers," Latimer said.
One final note: This column will be on hiatus through next week. While I'm off, I plan to celebrate Gerald Ford Day by misdirecting golf balls and falling down the stairs.
Reach Phil Reisman at preisman@lohud.com or call 914-694-5008. See more at reisman.lohudbogs.com.
As published in City Journal by the Manhattan Institute:
John M. Murtagh
Pack the City, We’re Moving!
Each year, one Yonkers leaves New York for friendlier climes.
11 February 2009
I’m thinking we should move to South Carolina. No, not me and the family. The whole city of Yonkers.
In June 2008, longtime Yonkers manufacturer Stewart EFI left the city, taking with it a few hundred manufacturing jobs. Then, a few weeks ago, the Precision Valve Corporation, one of Yonkers’s largest employers and a company founded in the city, announced that it was moving to the Palmetto State. Precision Valve vice president Bob Reto explained the relocation delicately: “The decision was driven by the need to operate under the greater efficiencies afforded in South Carolina.” Mayor Phil Amicone, by contrast, didn’t mince words: Yonkers “could not surmount the costly economics of doing business in New York State.”
Overall per-capita government spending in New York State is now the fourth-highest in the nation—nearly 50 percent above the national average. That’s a problem in good times; in the current economic climate, it’s a disaster. Examples of waste abound. New York spends more per pupil on education than any other state, yet it ranks near the bottom third in most measurements of student performance. Likewise, New York spends double the national average on Medicaid, yet lags badly in the quality of its health care.
The cash to fund this waste, of course, comes out of New York taxpayers’ pockets. When I ran for the New York State Senate last year, I’d remind audiences that here in Westchester, we live in the highest-taxed county in the highest-taxed state in the nation. New York’s personal-income and real-estate taxes are the highest in the country, while its business taxes are the second-highest. As a result, New York has seen a steady emigration of citizens and employers for years. In the current downturn, that emigration could turn into a stampede.
Yet as unchecked spending and a crushing tax burden destroy the Empire State, what solutions do we hear from our elected leaders in Albany? Governor David Paterson, while proposing token spending cuts, has called for over $3 billion in new “revenue actions.” Under his proposals, New Yorkers can expect to pay more for everything from haircuts to iTunes downloads to soda pop. Ever the populist, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver proposes that we “tax the rich”—or at least those he defines as such. What the Speaker really means is: Let’s tax the people who start and own businesses, create jobs, and pay salaries. Of course, the “rich” have a simple solution to tax increases: move to South Carolina, where there are “greater efficiencies” in doing business.
Precision Valve was founded by Bob Abplanalp, the Bronx-born son of an immigrant machine-shop owner. After building his business, Abplanalp joined other businessmen in founding the Hudson Valley Bank, also in Yonkers. Today, the Hudson Valley Bank is one of those increasingly rare independent banks focused on serving their local communities. For decades, Abplanalp and his family quietly but generously supported countless local charities, from the Yonkers Boy Scouts to a shelter for pregnant women. In the mid-1970s, Abplanalp all but single-handedly saved his old high school, Fordham Prep, as it struggled to keep its doors open. Today, Fordham Prep thrives, teaching a new generation of children, many the sons of immigrants themselves. Such are the “rich” who, Silver insists, must pay their “fair” share by turning their money over to the barons of Albany.
Instead of figuring out how to dig deeper into our pockets, New York leaders need to slash taxes, halt decades of wasteful spending, and make the state an attractive place to do business again. The current crisis demands a hard look at every line in New York’s bloated budget and dramatic cuts in unnecessary, mismanaged, and outdated programs. Likewise, Albany must eliminate the countless mandates, laws, and regulations that increase burdensome taxation and create additional inefficiency in local government.
As businesses like Precision Valve leave Yonkers, it’s worth remembering that over the last several years, New York has seen a net loss of close to 200,000 residents annually. Yonkers is, coincidentally, a city of approximately 200,000. What I suggested jokingly is, in fact, already happening: every year, Yonkers—or its equivalent in population, anyway—abandons New York.
John M. Murtagh, an attorney, is presently serving his second term as a member of the city council in Yonkers, New York State’s fourth-largest city.
Pack the City, We’re Moving!
Each year, one Yonkers leaves New York for friendlier climes.
11 February 2009
I’m thinking we should move to South Carolina. No, not me and the family. The whole city of Yonkers.
In June 2008, longtime Yonkers manufacturer Stewart EFI left the city, taking with it a few hundred manufacturing jobs. Then, a few weeks ago, the Precision Valve Corporation, one of Yonkers’s largest employers and a company founded in the city, announced that it was moving to the Palmetto State. Precision Valve vice president Bob Reto explained the relocation delicately: “The decision was driven by the need to operate under the greater efficiencies afforded in South Carolina.” Mayor Phil Amicone, by contrast, didn’t mince words: Yonkers “could not surmount the costly economics of doing business in New York State.”
Overall per-capita government spending in New York State is now the fourth-highest in the nation—nearly 50 percent above the national average. That’s a problem in good times; in the current economic climate, it’s a disaster. Examples of waste abound. New York spends more per pupil on education than any other state, yet it ranks near the bottom third in most measurements of student performance. Likewise, New York spends double the national average on Medicaid, yet lags badly in the quality of its health care.
The cash to fund this waste, of course, comes out of New York taxpayers’ pockets. When I ran for the New York State Senate last year, I’d remind audiences that here in Westchester, we live in the highest-taxed county in the highest-taxed state in the nation. New York’s personal-income and real-estate taxes are the highest in the country, while its business taxes are the second-highest. As a result, New York has seen a steady emigration of citizens and employers for years. In the current downturn, that emigration could turn into a stampede.
Yet as unchecked spending and a crushing tax burden destroy the Empire State, what solutions do we hear from our elected leaders in Albany? Governor David Paterson, while proposing token spending cuts, has called for over $3 billion in new “revenue actions.” Under his proposals, New Yorkers can expect to pay more for everything from haircuts to iTunes downloads to soda pop. Ever the populist, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver proposes that we “tax the rich”—or at least those he defines as such. What the Speaker really means is: Let’s tax the people who start and own businesses, create jobs, and pay salaries. Of course, the “rich” have a simple solution to tax increases: move to South Carolina, where there are “greater efficiencies” in doing business.
Precision Valve was founded by Bob Abplanalp, the Bronx-born son of an immigrant machine-shop owner. After building his business, Abplanalp joined other businessmen in founding the Hudson Valley Bank, also in Yonkers. Today, the Hudson Valley Bank is one of those increasingly rare independent banks focused on serving their local communities. For decades, Abplanalp and his family quietly but generously supported countless local charities, from the Yonkers Boy Scouts to a shelter for pregnant women. In the mid-1970s, Abplanalp all but single-handedly saved his old high school, Fordham Prep, as it struggled to keep its doors open. Today, Fordham Prep thrives, teaching a new generation of children, many the sons of immigrants themselves. Such are the “rich” who, Silver insists, must pay their “fair” share by turning their money over to the barons of Albany.
Instead of figuring out how to dig deeper into our pockets, New York leaders need to slash taxes, halt decades of wasteful spending, and make the state an attractive place to do business again. The current crisis demands a hard look at every line in New York’s bloated budget and dramatic cuts in unnecessary, mismanaged, and outdated programs. Likewise, Albany must eliminate the countless mandates, laws, and regulations that increase burdensome taxation and create additional inefficiency in local government.
As businesses like Precision Valve leave Yonkers, it’s worth remembering that over the last several years, New York has seen a net loss of close to 200,000 residents annually. Yonkers is, coincidentally, a city of approximately 200,000. What I suggested jokingly is, in fact, already happening: every year, Yonkers—or its equivalent in population, anyway—abandons New York.
John M. Murtagh, an attorney, is presently serving his second term as a member of the city council in Yonkers, New York State’s fourth-largest city.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
ALBANY STILL DOESN"T GET IT
ALBANY - State lawmakers are expected today to close the state's current $1.6 billion budget gap by using unspent money for a defunct emergency telecommunications system, raising health-insurance taxes and redirecting $500 million from the state Power Authority.
So reports the Journal News this evening. So what do we learn? During the worst economic downturn in a generation, as hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers leave the state annually due to a tax system that makes it the highest taxed state in the nation, our State Legislature cannot bring itself to balance a budget by reining in spending. Its only solution is tax increases and financial gimmickry. Its time for leadership in Albany that understands that the problem isn't a lack of revenue, but an excess of spending. If they don't understand that then its time for new leadership. I get it. You get it. Why don't they get it?
So reports the Journal News this evening. So what do we learn? During the worst economic downturn in a generation, as hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers leave the state annually due to a tax system that makes it the highest taxed state in the nation, our State Legislature cannot bring itself to balance a budget by reining in spending. Its only solution is tax increases and financial gimmickry. Its time for leadership in Albany that understands that the problem isn't a lack of revenue, but an excess of spending. If they don't understand that then its time for new leadership. I get it. You get it. Why don't they get it?
Saturday, January 31, 2009
STIMULUS DEFINED
“Stimulus” comes from the verb stimulare, which is Latin for “transfer massive sums of money from what remains of the dynamic sector of the economy to the special interests of the Democratic party.”
-Mark Steyn at National Review On Line
-Mark Steyn at National Review On Line
THE VIEW FROM BEHIND THE TINTED GLASS
Many years ago, a great deal was made of George Bush (41) marveling at an electronic scanner in a supermarket. The spin was that candidate Bush, apparently not familiar with how an average supermarket functioned, was hopelessly out of touch with the average American.
That story comes back to mind as we consider the current flap over Cabinet nominee Tom Daschle’s failure to pay over $100,000 in taxes for a private car and chauffer he ha been using for the last four years. After leaving the Senate, Daschle apparently took a high paying position with a New York investment firm headed by a long time campaign contributor. Among the perks was a car and driver…a perk that Senator Daschle had apparently also enjoyed at taxpayer expense when he was the Majority Leader. Like Treasury Secretary Geithner before him, Daschle apparently only paid the back taxes after he was nominated to the Obama Cabinet.
To me, more important than the tax issue, is what it says that our Senator and now presumed Secretary of Health and Human Services has been traveling in a cocoon all theses years. Personally, I think there is something to be said for waiting in the rain or snow for your bus or train. It’s a small point, but it’s those kinds of thing that keeps you in touch. It seems to me its tougher to “feel their pain” from the back seat of a chauffer driven Town Car.
That story comes back to mind as we consider the current flap over Cabinet nominee Tom Daschle’s failure to pay over $100,000 in taxes for a private car and chauffer he ha been using for the last four years. After leaving the Senate, Daschle apparently took a high paying position with a New York investment firm headed by a long time campaign contributor. Among the perks was a car and driver…a perk that Senator Daschle had apparently also enjoyed at taxpayer expense when he was the Majority Leader. Like Treasury Secretary Geithner before him, Daschle apparently only paid the back taxes after he was nominated to the Obama Cabinet.
To me, more important than the tax issue, is what it says that our Senator and now presumed Secretary of Health and Human Services has been traveling in a cocoon all theses years. Personally, I think there is something to be said for waiting in the rain or snow for your bus or train. It’s a small point, but it’s those kinds of thing that keeps you in touch. It seems to me its tougher to “feel their pain” from the back seat of a chauffer driven Town Car.
Friday, January 30, 2009
THE BLAME ALBANY GAME IS GROWING OLD
Tonight’s combined meeting of the Education and Intergovernmental Relations Committees was well timed, falling as close as it does to “Groundhog Day”. Like the Bill Murray movie of the same name where every day just repeats itself, we were treated to two hours of the same old same old. How a roomful of appointed and elected officials living in the midst of the worst economy in memory in a state that is all but broke could spend well over an hour making the same tired arguments is beyond me. Once again the old song was being sung: the only answer to projected education funding shortfalls is the argument we’ve made for decades - that Yonkers is shortchanged under the State formula.
When I pointed out that there was no reasonable expectation that an argument that had failed for decades would suddenly prevail in the next two months nobody had an answer. When I asked the Superintendent what “Plan B” might be, he offered only the annual dire predictions of massive layoffs.
Its time for tough decision making. Albany is not, realistically, going to save Yonkers from pain anymore than it can or will spare any other municipality. We live in a State that grew its budget year in and year out based on a tax base 20 to 25% dependent on Wall Street. Given that fact in these times, the party is over and difficult decision making, creativity and shared pain are the order of the day.
I don’t pretend to have all the answers, but relying on tired blame games and unrealistic hopes is no longer an option. All stakeholders must seriously reexamine their priorities and rethink how we are operating our schools (and our city) if we are going to make it safely through this storm.
When I pointed out that there was no reasonable expectation that an argument that had failed for decades would suddenly prevail in the next two months nobody had an answer. When I asked the Superintendent what “Plan B” might be, he offered only the annual dire predictions of massive layoffs.
Its time for tough decision making. Albany is not, realistically, going to save Yonkers from pain anymore than it can or will spare any other municipality. We live in a State that grew its budget year in and year out based on a tax base 20 to 25% dependent on Wall Street. Given that fact in these times, the party is over and difficult decision making, creativity and shared pain are the order of the day.
I don’t pretend to have all the answers, but relying on tired blame games and unrealistic hopes is no longer an option. All stakeholders must seriously reexamine their priorities and rethink how we are operating our schools (and our city) if we are going to make it safely through this storm.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
HAPPY ANNIVERSARY!
Tonight was something of an anniversary for me...the sixth year in a row that I cast the Council's lone vote against installing "Red Light Cameras" on Yonkers' streets.
Despite all the claims of traffic safety, the truth is that Red Light cameras have nothing to do with safety and everything to do with raising revenue. They are just another way for government to take money out of people's pockets under the guise of public concern (think taxing soda pop).
The fact is study after study, including a study by Congress after extensive hearings, has demonstrated that the cameras actually increase accidents, particularly rear end accidents. Think about it, you're aproaching an intersection. At the last second, the light goes yellow. Right or wrong the fellow behind you anticipates you'll proceed. You see the camera or, your a local and know it is there. You slam on the brakes. Bam!
The fact is that intersections with a high incidence of red light infractions usually have other underlying issues, bad site lines, mistimed lights etc. If the issue is safety, then address that problem. If the issue is generating revenue for City Hall, then have the courage to say so and vote for taxes...or better yet have some real courage and vote to cut spending.
Despite all the claims of traffic safety, the truth is that Red Light cameras have nothing to do with safety and everything to do with raising revenue. They are just another way for government to take money out of people's pockets under the guise of public concern (think taxing soda pop).
The fact is study after study, including a study by Congress after extensive hearings, has demonstrated that the cameras actually increase accidents, particularly rear end accidents. Think about it, you're aproaching an intersection. At the last second, the light goes yellow. Right or wrong the fellow behind you anticipates you'll proceed. You see the camera or, your a local and know it is there. You slam on the brakes. Bam!
The fact is that intersections with a high incidence of red light infractions usually have other underlying issues, bad site lines, mistimed lights etc. If the issue is safety, then address that problem. If the issue is generating revenue for City Hall, then have the courage to say so and vote for taxes...or better yet have some real courage and vote to cut spending.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
NEW YORK STATE SHOULD REQUIRE SPECIAL ELECTIONS TO FILL VACANCIES.
I used to live in a representative democracy. For years, I voted in an election and someone picked by the voters then represented me. Today, three fifths of the stateside officials governing New York were not elected to the offices they hold. Our Governor, our State Comptroller and, now, our junior Senator were all put in office by accident or by other politicians. It doesn’t have to be this way. Nothing prevents state law from calling for special elections so that the voters can choose their leaders. The usual excuse offered by the politicians, the expense of a special election, doesn’t hold water. Tw o regularly scheduled elections will have come and gone before we get to vote for Governor. There is no reason Governor Patterson could not have been forced to stand for election this past November or this coming November. There is no reason that newly hand picked Senator Kirsten Gilibrand should not have to stand for election this November rather than November 2010. For example, in the event of a Senate vacancy require either a special election or a vote at the next regular election.:
California -- "An election to fill a vacancy in the term of a United States Senator shall be held at the general election next succeeding the occurrence of the vacancy or at any special election. This gives the governor the option of calling for a special election.
New Jersey -- " If a vacancy shall happen in the representation of this state in the United States senate, it shall be filled at the general election next succeeding the happening thereof... unless the governor of this state shall deem it advisable to call a special election therefore, which he is authorized hereby to do.
Hawaii -- The law directs that "the governor shall make a temporary appointment to fill [a U.S. Senate] vacancy by selecting a person from a list of three prospective appointees submitted by the same political party as the prior incumbent."
Utah -- "The governor shall appoint a person to serve as U.S. senator until the vacancy is filled by election from one of three persons nominated by the state central committee of the same political party as the prior officeholder."
Wyoming -- This extremely detailed law says "if a vacancy occurs in the office of United States senator ...the governor shall immediately notify in writing the chairman of the state central committee of the political party which the last incumbent represented at the time of his election ..... The chairman shall call a meeting of the state central committee to be held not later than 15 days after he receives notice of the vacancy. At the meeting the state central committee shall select and transmit to the governor the names of three persons qualified to fill the vacancy. Within five days after receiving these three names, the governor shall fill the vacancy by temporary appointment of one of the three to hold the office."
Eight states call for a special election to be held to fill the vacancy. Here, omitting some of the fine-point calendar details, are those laws:
Alabama -- "Whenever a vacancy occurs in the office of senator of and from the State of Alabama in the Senate of the United States more than four months before a general election, the Governor of Alabama shall forthwith order an election to be held ...to elect a senator of and from the State of Alabama to the United States Senate for the unexpired term."
Alaska -- "When a vacancy occurs in the office of United States senator, the governor may, at least five days after the date of the vacancy but within 30 days after the date of the vacancy, appoint a qualified individual to fill the vacancy temporarily until the results of the special election called to fill the vacancy are certified.....The governor shall, by proclamation, call a special election to be held on a date not less than 60, nor more than 90, days after the date the vacancy occurs."
Massachusetts --"The governor shall immediately ... call an election ... not more than 160 nor less than 145 days after the date that a vacancy is created.... If a vacancy is created for senator in congress after April 10 of an even-numbered year, the (vote shall take place at) the biennial state election ballot in that year.
Oklahoma - "Whenever a vacancy shall occur in the office of a member of the United States Senate or United States House of Representatives from Oklahoma, such vacancy shall be filled at a Special Election to be called by the Governor within 30 days after such vacancy occurs."
Oregon -- "If a vacancy in election or office of Representative in Congress or United States Senator occurs before the 61st day before the general election, the Governor shall call a special election to fill that vacancy. "
Vermont -- "If a vacancy occurs in the office of United States senator or United States representative, the governor shall call a special election to fill the vacancy. ...The special election shall be held not more than three months from the date the vacancy occurs, except that if the vacancy occurs within six months of a general election, the special election may be held the same day as the general election.
Washington -- "Whenever a vacancy occurs in the United States house of representatives or the United States senate from this state, the governor shall order a special election to fill the vacancy. ...Within 10 days of such vacancy occurring, he or she shall issue a writ of election fixing a date for the special vacancy election not less than 90 days after the issuance of the writ, fixing a date for the primary for nominating major political party candidates for the special vacancy election not less than 30 days before the day fixed for holding the special vacancy election."
Wisconsin -- "A vacancy in the office of U.S. senator or representative in congress occurring prior to the 2nd Tuesday in May in the year of the general election shall be filled at a special primary and election. A vacancy in that office occurring between the 2nd Tuesday in May and the 2nd Tuesday in July in the year of the general election shall be filled at the September primary and general election."
New Yorkers deserve no less than the same right to choose their own leaders and the legislature should address this issue immediately
California -- "An election to fill a vacancy in the term of a United States Senator shall be held at the general election next succeeding the occurrence of the vacancy or at any special election. This gives the governor the option of calling for a special election.
New Jersey -- " If a vacancy shall happen in the representation of this state in the United States senate, it shall be filled at the general election next succeeding the happening thereof... unless the governor of this state shall deem it advisable to call a special election therefore, which he is authorized hereby to do.
Hawaii -- The law directs that "the governor shall make a temporary appointment to fill [a U.S. Senate] vacancy by selecting a person from a list of three prospective appointees submitted by the same political party as the prior incumbent."
Utah -- "The governor shall appoint a person to serve as U.S. senator until the vacancy is filled by election from one of three persons nominated by the state central committee of the same political party as the prior officeholder."
Wyoming -- This extremely detailed law says "if a vacancy occurs in the office of United States senator ...the governor shall immediately notify in writing the chairman of the state central committee of the political party which the last incumbent represented at the time of his election ..... The chairman shall call a meeting of the state central committee to be held not later than 15 days after he receives notice of the vacancy. At the meeting the state central committee shall select and transmit to the governor the names of three persons qualified to fill the vacancy. Within five days after receiving these three names, the governor shall fill the vacancy by temporary appointment of one of the three to hold the office."
Eight states call for a special election to be held to fill the vacancy. Here, omitting some of the fine-point calendar details, are those laws:
Alabama -- "Whenever a vacancy occurs in the office of senator of and from the State of Alabama in the Senate of the United States more than four months before a general election, the Governor of Alabama shall forthwith order an election to be held ...to elect a senator of and from the State of Alabama to the United States Senate for the unexpired term."
Alaska -- "When a vacancy occurs in the office of United States senator, the governor may, at least five days after the date of the vacancy but within 30 days after the date of the vacancy, appoint a qualified individual to fill the vacancy temporarily until the results of the special election called to fill the vacancy are certified.....The governor shall, by proclamation, call a special election to be held on a date not less than 60, nor more than 90, days after the date the vacancy occurs."
Massachusetts --"The governor shall immediately ... call an election ... not more than 160 nor less than 145 days after the date that a vacancy is created.... If a vacancy is created for senator in congress after April 10 of an even-numbered year, the (vote shall take place at) the biennial state election ballot in that year.
Oklahoma - "Whenever a vacancy shall occur in the office of a member of the United States Senate or United States House of Representatives from Oklahoma, such vacancy shall be filled at a Special Election to be called by the Governor within 30 days after such vacancy occurs."
Oregon -- "If a vacancy in election or office of Representative in Congress or United States Senator occurs before the 61st day before the general election, the Governor shall call a special election to fill that vacancy. "
Vermont -- "If a vacancy occurs in the office of United States senator or United States representative, the governor shall call a special election to fill the vacancy. ...The special election shall be held not more than three months from the date the vacancy occurs, except that if the vacancy occurs within six months of a general election, the special election may be held the same day as the general election.
Washington -- "Whenever a vacancy occurs in the United States house of representatives or the United States senate from this state, the governor shall order a special election to fill the vacancy. ...Within 10 days of such vacancy occurring, he or she shall issue a writ of election fixing a date for the special vacancy election not less than 90 days after the issuance of the writ, fixing a date for the primary for nominating major political party candidates for the special vacancy election not less than 30 days before the day fixed for holding the special vacancy election."
Wisconsin -- "A vacancy in the office of U.S. senator or representative in congress occurring prior to the 2nd Tuesday in May in the year of the general election shall be filled at a special primary and election. A vacancy in that office occurring between the 2nd Tuesday in May and the 2nd Tuesday in July in the year of the general election shall be filled at the September primary and general election."
New Yorkers deserve no less than the same right to choose their own leaders and the legislature should address this issue immediately
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
PRESIDENT OBAMA RIGHT ON OPEN GOVERNMENT
In remarks delivered today at the swearing in of his senior staff, President Obama set a standard for open government which should serve as a model for elected officials at every level.
Obama declared that “transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency”. Referring to the federal Freedom of Information Act, President Obama added “the Freedom of Information Act is perhaps the most powerful instrument we have for making our government honest and transparent, and of holding it accountable. And I expect members of my administration not simply to live up to the letter but also the spirit of this law”.
In New York, elected and appointed officials at the state and local level are bound by the State Freedom of Information Law. Too often, when citizens seek information under that statute, it becomes a game as the government seeks to exploit any exception or loophole at its disposal to avoid disclosure. Too often, what should be full disclosure becomes a game of “gotcha” with government departments and officials straining to figure out how not to comply with disclosure.
Recognizing this problem on the federal level, President Obama today remarked that “for a long time now, there's been too much secrecy in this city. The old rules said that if there was a defensible argument for not disclosing something to the American people, then it should not be disclosed. That era is now over. Starting today, every agency and department should know that this administration stands on the side not of those who seek to withhold information but those who seek to make it known”.
Good government demands that every citizen have available the information that allows him to make informed decisions and to judge the wisdom of the decisions being made by those who govern. Particularly as we enter a budget season that promises to demand hard choices which will directly impact the life of every resident of New York, officials at every level of government would do well to heed the spirit of the new President’s remarks.
Obama declared that “transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency”. Referring to the federal Freedom of Information Act, President Obama added “the Freedom of Information Act is perhaps the most powerful instrument we have for making our government honest and transparent, and of holding it accountable. And I expect members of my administration not simply to live up to the letter but also the spirit of this law”.
In New York, elected and appointed officials at the state and local level are bound by the State Freedom of Information Law. Too often, when citizens seek information under that statute, it becomes a game as the government seeks to exploit any exception or loophole at its disposal to avoid disclosure. Too often, what should be full disclosure becomes a game of “gotcha” with government departments and officials straining to figure out how not to comply with disclosure.
Recognizing this problem on the federal level, President Obama today remarked that “for a long time now, there's been too much secrecy in this city. The old rules said that if there was a defensible argument for not disclosing something to the American people, then it should not be disclosed. That era is now over. Starting today, every agency and department should know that this administration stands on the side not of those who seek to withhold information but those who seek to make it known”.
Good government demands that every citizen have available the information that allows him to make informed decisions and to judge the wisdom of the decisions being made by those who govern. Particularly as we enter a budget season that promises to demand hard choices which will directly impact the life of every resident of New York, officials at every level of government would do well to heed the spirit of the new President’s remarks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
