Paterson backs congestion charge

danny burstein wrote:
> In <f6add79c-f84a-4335-9f4e-7e450c9ca510@d62g2000hsf..com> "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@> writes:
>
>>> Then there are the people who question this whole concept
>>> of federal funds, that is, taxpayer money, going to local
>>> projects of this sort.

Well, it happens. And we're taxpayers here, and many of the tax dollars
we send Washington aren't spent on us. As a matter of fact, they're
spent on local projects elsewhere. So at least this way we get some of
that back.

>> As if those who will benefit from it are not also taxpayers?
>
> They're being fed the li[n]e that since it's federal
> money, it's not costing them anything.

It may be costing us something, but if it's not spent on us, it will be
spent elsewhere.

"Bolwerk" <bolwerk@> wrote in message
news:13ub4d616k25b6b@corp.supernews.com...

>>> As if those who will benefit from it are not also taxpayers?
>>
>> They're being fed the li[n]e that since it's federal money, it's not
>> costing them anything.
>
> It may be costing us something, but if it's not spent on us, it will be
> spent elsewhere.

Given that New York -- New York City taxpayers in particular -- send far
more to Washington than Washington spends here, any additional money spent
here is simply returning some of our own money.

One might make a different argument in one of those states that is "on the
dole" -- but NY (and Connecticut and New Jersey) pay huge amounts to
subidize people in other states.

Cheers,
Jim

>I believe this is false.

This is America, where you're free to believe anything, no matter how
wrong.

--
"Whatever you do, don't stick your head in the oven" - Keith Hernandez,
on how to end a batting slump

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 18:28:47 -0700 (PDT), Sancho Panza
<otterpower@m> wrote:

>On Mar 25, 2:20 pm, ste...@panix.com (Steven M. O'Neill) wrote:

>> Well, there's no reason for you or I to speculate. They are
>> already planning bus and subway improvement before pricing goes
>> into effect, and the plan is to evaluate the results
>> of pricing to see where further improvements may be needed.
>
>Maybe not so quickly:
>
>March 25, 2008
>M.T.A. Delays Improvements, Citing Drop in Real Estate Sales Taxes
>By WILLIAM NEUMAN
>
>The Metropolitan Transportation Authority on Monday postponed $30
>million in service improvements that it had promised in connection
>with recent fare and toll increases, saying its finances had worsened
>sharply.

This is not related to any plans for improvements related to
congestion pricing.

--
Peter Schleifer
"Save me from the people who would save me from myself"

On Mar 26, 7:33 am, Peter Schleifer <pschl...@speakeasy.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 18:28:47 -0700 (PDT), Sancho Panza
>
>
>
> <otterpo...@m> wrote:
> >On Mar 25, 2:20 pm, ste...@panix.com (Steven M. O'Neill) wrote:
> >> Well, there's no reason for you or I to speculate. They are
> >> already planning bus and subway improvement before pricing goes
> >> into effect, and the plan is to evaluate the results
> >> of pricing to see where further improvements may be needed.
>
> >Maybe not so quickly:
>
> >March 25, 2008
> >M.T.A. Delays Improvements, Citing Drop in Real Estate Sales Taxes
> >By WILLIAM NEUMAN
>
> >The Metropolitan Transportation Authority on Monday postponed $30
> >million in service improvements that it had promised in connection
> >with recent fare and toll increases, saying its finances had worsened
> >sharply.
>
> This is not related to any plans for improvements related to
> congestion pricing.
>
> --
> Peter Schleifer
> "Save me from the people who would save me from myself"

Ah. So it's a different MTA? The other MTA- the one that will be
getting the money from congestion taxes- isn't the MTA that has a
budget shortfall?

Chris

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 11:25:33 -0400, "Joseph D. Korman"
<joekor@> wrote:

>Should Sander have held off on making the announcement about extra
>service? Probably, but I guess no one on his staff could see the real
>estate collapse three weeks ago. Hindsight is always 20-20! ;-) They
>did know about the fare increase though, that's what promted the
>announcement.

Not for nothing, but the collapse didn't just start three weeks ago.
The downturn may just be hitting NYC, but unless you're in a chic burb
where there's no new space to build -- like Scarsdale, Larchmont, etc
-- the average home price in the MTA's territory has fallen 15 percent
or so. As I understand it, the transfer taxes come from sales
throughout the territory.

Only people with their heads buried in the sand didn't see this
coming.

On Mar 26, 2:52 pm, Cyrus Afzali <pnsm...@lnubb.pbz> wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 11:25:33 -0400, "Joseph D. Korman"
>
> <joe...@> wrote:
> >Should Sander have held off on making the announcement about extra
> >service? Probably, but I guess no one on his staff could see the real
> >estate collapse three weeks ago. Hindsight is always 20-20! ;-) They
> >did know about the fare increase though, that's what promted the
> >announcement.
>
> Not for nothing, but the collapse didn't just start three weeks ago.
> The downturn may just be hitting NYC, but unless you're in a chic burb
> where there's no new space to build -- like Scarsdale, Larchmont, etc
> -- the average home price in the MTA's territory has fallen 15 percent
> or so. As I understand it, the transfer taxes come from sales
> throughout the territory.
>
> Only people with their heads buried in the sand didn't see this
> coming.

Which is, of course, besides the point.

The point is that the MTA will use the money from the congestion tax
to do whatever it feels like doing at any given moment. If the top
bozos need new limos, that's where the money will go. If they want to
spend it on advertising telling us how many unattended bags of dirty
socks in Port Authority were picked up by alert Homeland Security
agents, they'll do that. And if some watchdog really does stand over
them making sure the money gets spent on transit, they'll just do the
same thing NY State does with the lottery money- reduce the state
education budget by 102% of the lottery income, and say, "See! It all
goes to edumacashun!"

Chris

chris.linthompson@ wrote:
> On Mar 26, 2:52 pm, Cyrus Afzali <pnsm...@lnubb.pbz> wrote:
>> On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 11:25:33 -0400, "Joseph D. Korman"
>>
>> <joe...@> wrote:
>>> Should Sander have held off on making the announcement about extra
>>> service? Probably, but I guess no one on his staff could see the real
>>> estate collapse three weeks ago. Hindsight is always 20-20! ;-) They
>>> did know about the fare increase though, that's what promted the
>>> announcement.
>> Not for nothing, but the collapse didn't just start three weeks ago.
>> The downturn may just be hitting NYC, but unless you're in a chic burb
>> where there's no new space to build -- like Scarsdale, Larchmont, etc
>> -- the average home price in the MTA's territory has fallen 15 percent
>> or so. As I understand it, the transfer taxes come from sales
>> throughout the territory.
>>
>> Only people with their heads buried in the sand didn't see this
>> coming.
>
> Which is, of course, besides the point.
>
> The point is that the MTA will use the money from the congestion tax
> to do whatever it feels like doing at any given moment. If the top
> bozos need new limos, that's where the money will go. If they want to
> spend it on advertising telling us how many unattended bags of dirty
> socks in Port Authority were picked up by alert Homeland Security
> agents, they'll do that. And if some watchdog really does stand over
> them making sure the money gets spent on transit, they'll just do the
> same thing NY State does with the lottery money- reduce the state
> education budget by 102% of the lottery income, and say, "See! It all
> goes to edumacashun!"

The money is earmarked for capital construction. Obviously, it's
unrealistic to expect it would be spent perfectly, but I rather doubt
it's just going to limos for management (which already has limos, I'm
sure). And believe me, if this could be coupled with a provision
requiring that management gets to work the same way every else does - on
their own dime, I'd all be for it.

Besides, even if the MTA does screw everyone, this is a smart way to
solve the congestion problem in New York, and some of the accompanying
pollution and lost productivity that results.

On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:30:02 -0400, "Joseph D. Korman"
<joekor@> wrote:

>Cyrus Afzali wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 11:25:33 -0400, "Joseph D. Korman"
>> <joekor@> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Should Sander have held off on making the announcement about extra
>>>service? Probably, but I guess no one on his staff could see the real
>>>estate collapse three weeks ago. Hindsight is always 20-20! ;-) They
>>>did know about the fare increase though, that's what promted the
>>>announcement.
>>
>>
>> Not for nothing, but the collapse didn't just start three weeks ago.
>> The downturn may just be hitting NYC, but unless you're in a chic burb
>> where there's no new space to build -- like Scarsdale, Larchmont, etc
>> -- the average home price in the MTA's territory has fallen 15 percent
>> or so. As I understand it, the transfer taxes come from sales
>> throughout the territory.
>>
>> Only people with their heads buried in the sand didn't see this
>> coming.
>
>The budget cycle is longer than that. The service announcements, which
>they now say are delayed not canceled, were part of the PR effort to
>soften the pain of the fare hike. The original proposed enhancements
>were approved in the December MTA board meeting.

Right, but honestly the MTA has been spending money like drunken
sailors for the last 2-3 years. Don't get me wrong, I love the
improvements and think the money was well spent. But fiscal watchdogs
will tell you that the debt burden they took on wasn't that smart
since it wasn't really offset that much by additional revenues -- at
least relatively speaking.

There have been warnings about lower revenues from real estate
transactions in the wings for quite some time.

On Mar 28, 8:09 am, jdoe <j...@> wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 19:17:38 -0700 (PDT), hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> >On Mar 27, 2:32 pm, Bolwerk <bolw...@> wrote:
> >> But if you're driving, you're paying the toll plus gas, which is
> >> $3+/gallon.  I'm guessing your starting cost for driving is closer to
> >> $11+, assuming traffic is light and you have a fuel-efficient vehicle,
> >> and goes up sharply if the traffic is bad.
>
> >Don't forget in addition to gasoline motorists have wear and tear on
> >their vehicle as well as depreciation.  Insurance is trickier, but low
> >mileage motorists do pay less for insurance.
>
> I've never seen an auto insurance policy that is based on milage, the
> only question they ask is if the car is used for commuting or
> business, never been asked about how many miles driven, and I do about
> 30k miles a year

Then maybe you should shop around for your insurance.

Or maybe once you tell them it's used for "commuting" or "business,"
they don't bother to ask about mileage. Yours is about triple the
average (warranties used to be "5 years/50,000 miles"), so your rates
might go up considerably if they did.