Today’s Headlines

  • Friends of James Langergaard Rally for a Safer Queens Boulevard (News)
  • Jim Dwyer: Crumbling Stations Are What You Get for Disinvesting in the Subway System (NYT)
  • More on the 181st Street Ceiling Collapse (Post, 2nd Ave Sagas)
  • Careening Cab Smashes Into 72nd Street Subway Entrance, Injuring Pedestrian (News)
  • Bronx Dad Dead After Letting His 13-Year-Old Son Practice Parking (Post)
  • Bronx Prosecutors to Pursue Murder Charge Against Killer Driver Mark St. Pierre (Post)
  • New Yassky Bill Attempts to Pair Rezoning Projects With Transit Improvements (Bklyn Eagle)
  • American Cities Start Getting Serious About Bike Parking (Slate)
  • Plans Advance for Two-Mile Promenade Along East River (WNYC)
  • Knicks G Nate Robinson Arrested for Driving Without a License; LOLZ Ensue (Post, News)
  • Business Booming for Wichcraft Since Herald Square Went Car-Free (WNYC)

More headlines over at Streetsblog Capitol Hill

  • Charles Diez, Asheville, NC’s firefighter/sharpshooter, lost his government job last week.

  • Larry Littlefield

    That “Price of Darkness” journalist, and older guy who ran over a homeless guy with his SUV and kept going and was later found to have something wrong with his brain, died of that disease.

    This is going to be a big issue going forward, particularly in places built to make independent life impossible without you own motor vehicle.

    We saw how allowing Medicare to pay for optional living will counseling was deceptively (and successfully) sold to today’s senior citizens as “death panels” buy those seeking the senior vote, the only vote that matters. I’d bet any attempt to limit the “right” to drive, even after a pedestrian or two had been run over, would be Swiftboated the same way, by one of the two political tribes.

  • That silly Mark St. Pierre. He should have just waited till the father and son were walking in Manhattan, where he could have legally killed them with his car!

  • Go, Yassky! This bill is really overdue – the effects of encouraging non-stop development, only for maximized profit and without consideration of the impacts on the city’s ability to deliver services, has burdened neighborhoods across the city. If you’re going to stuff your pockets with billions from development, you must contribute to the infrastructure that makes that development valuable.

  • The bill containing funding for the repairs of the 181st St. station was passed in Albany last Friday. What if Espada hadn’t dicked-up Albany for 2 months this spring?

    Roof repairs were neglected because of Espada’s clowning around. I wish I could get that message out there!

  • Boris

    Yassky’s bill seems to be just another excuse to avoid upzoning/TOD despite the pressure of New York’s ever-increasing population. Will it actually mandate the city or developers to add subway and bus service before rezoning or construction? How are they going to do that? With this bill, we can say goodbye to most potential TOD developments unless the city agrees to fund these additional services (or the MTA magically gets more money).

  • Larry Littlefield

    “Yassky’s bill seems to be just another excuse to avoid upzoning/TOD despite the pressure of New York’s ever-increasing population.”

    I agree. I worry about fiscal zoning. These types of concerns have led to all out efforts to zone children out of town in other places (New Jersey, Mass), as schools are the number one public cost. And opposition to affordable housing, since less well off people are unlikely to cover the cost of their own services.

    Interesting side note: in fast growing states communities typically negotiate “impact fees” in exchange for development approval. New York State law prohibits this here. If nothing else, Yassky’s bill might stop REBNY from whining about NYC being anti-development for a while, by demonstrating what anti-development actually is.

    Another interesting side note: this sort of provision does exist, even for as of right development, in one part of the city for one service — school seat certification on the South Shore of Staten Island. This area built out anyway, although the provision may have skewed the distribution of school resources and led to greater relative crowding elsewhere.

    We’ve got 8.4 million people, in 3 million-plus housing units. What goes on in the housing units we already have will have a greater effect on everything than new units.

  • James

    From the article, it doesn’t appear that Yassky’s bill would require anything beyond a set of impact studies conducted by the appropriate city departments to determine the impact of new real estate development on infrastructure. Unless there is some unmentioned provision in the bill that sets forth a mechanism to prohibit development if the impacts exceed a certain threshold or require fees be paid to MTA or other agencies to offset some of the costs of service upgrades, then this will simply lead to more studies and nothing more. In other words, there don’t appear to be any teeth in the bill.

  • Larry Littlefield

    “Yassky’s bill would require anything beyond a set of impact studies conducted by the appropriate city departments…this will simply lead to more studies and nothing more.”

    And more lawsuits that any decision was improper because the studies were flawed.

    “In other words, there don’t appear to be any teeth in the bill.”

    The teeth — the ability to get into court, get an injunction or at least kill off financing, and stall for years and years — would apply to any project regardless of its validity or the validity of the studies.

    Development would only proceed in places where no one who objected (or wanted to be “compensated”) could afford the lawyer. And any development serving the less well off could be stopped.

    That’s not how laws mandating public due dillegence should work in theory. That is how they have worked in practice. And when those negatively affected don’t matter, the due dillegence has been a fraud.