Alex Rodriguez <adr5@columbia.edu> writes:
> In article <874r1cegmy.fsf@greenberger.no-ip.com>, davidg@email.com says...
>
>>It's both. A good idea doesn't become a bad idea if it would raise
>>money for the city, you know. In case you haven't been reading the
>>news over the past year, the city's been a bit short on cash.
>>Whatever it doesn't raise by one means has to raise by another.
>
> The obvious option that is being missed is to spend less.
I don't know about you, but it seems like most of the people who have
been complaining about increased taxes and fees have also been
complaining about reduced services. Why do you think Bloomberg's so
unpopular? He raised taxes and reduced services.
There is yet another option: borrow. It's usually a bad option for
anyone interested in the long-term health of the city. It's not
necessarily a bad option for a mayor who seeks reelection for one more
term and doesn't care what happens to the city once he's out of
office. I commend Mayor Bloomberg for his apparent interest in the
long-term health of the city.
But let's get back to the topic of the thread, and of my paragraph
above. A good idea doesn't become a bad idea if it would raise money
for the city. Do you disagree?
--
David J. Greenberger
New York, NY
New Report Quantifies Time Savings from East River Tolls 
