In Today's Observer
Jason Horowitz looks at the power-elite support for Charles Simon's (so-far) failed bid for the State Assembly.
Matt Schuerman has a thoughtful look at whether MIke has become a "housing activist," and notes that a task force considering reform of the 421a program -- which critics say is a subsidy for already-profitable luxury housing -- is a fraught issue for housing developers.
Joe Conason rises to the defense of the opposition to the Dubai ports deal led by poor, embattled Chuck Schumer. Well, embattled by the counter-intuitive editorial-page types anyway. [UPDATE: This is slighly edited to make the point that Conason isn't defending Chuck personally, but rebutting the line that criticism of the deal is "xenophobic."]
And Nicholas Von Hoffman tries to take an honest look at Coretta Scott King in a discussion of how dishonestly America treats its icons.
As I have pointed out in other forums, does it make sense to rapidly downzone large areas of the city to stop development the city itself is subsidizing? That is the current policy.
These subsidies (and others) should be limited to locations where infrastructure is in place, population/employment is down from what it was, and development would not take place without it. Same with the Empire Zones and the rest. Really, all the sales/income/property tax breaks have become political giveaways, not economic programs.
That goes for 421b (commercial) too. Why to we desperately try to keep new large stores out of manufacturing zones, where land is available, then subdisize them if they pay everyone off and go through the review process?
Finally, not that Mr. Bloomberg wants to turn the repealed subsidizies into a funding source for subdizided middle income housing that a few lucky people will get. Anywhere else, the full taxes would be collected, and they would be used for schools, parks, libraries, and infrastructure. Guess what, and who, doesn't matter in New York? The kids and the future.
Of course I meant "now that Mayor Bloomberg wants to use the repealed subsidies into funding for subsidized middle income housing." As the Bush Administration proved, this country isn't against welfare, it's against welfare for the poor, especially poor immigrants and minorities. Lets get rid of that and free up spending money for everyone else. It's bi-partisan!
New York City's state and local taxes are one-third higher than the national average as a share of income overall. But with so many deals out there, those who don't have them (or who have less than average) faces taxes that are far higher.
NYC spends far more than average on Medicaid, Housing, Police, Debts and Pensions. It spends less than average on most other things, despite the high taxes. And it keeps spending more where it spends more, leaving less for categories where it spends less. And once the housing authority properties really start to decay, we'll really be looking at slashing school and infrasturcture spending.
The winners have won enough, damn it.
I guess Jason thinks Linda’s voters are bodega owners and OTB workers. You break 60% of the vote on the upper West Side against someone who barely got 20% and your voters are the cognoscenti, the glitterati and the CFD members.
She would have been elected without Stringer or Nadler support - no offense to either of them - but Linda would have won this on her own. She IS THAT GOOD. Unless something changes radically, she'll win again in the fall.