Glick Worried Pricing Will Make Air Quality Worse

glick_1.jpgReader Sarah Ferguson reports that Assembly Member Deborah Glick (right), who represents Lower Manhattan, has come up with a novel twist on Richard Brodsky’s call for further environmental review of congestion pricing. Read on for the full story, and keep making those phone calls. We want to know what else legislators are telling their constituents today.

I just called Deborah Glick’s office as an outraged constituent to ask why she was not doing more to support congestion pricing, since she represents a swath of Manhattan on the West Side that would certainly benefit from reduced cars, better mass transit, etc.

I spoke to one of her top aides, Theresa Swidorski, who told me that while Glick "has not taken a position," one of her main concerns is the fact that the Congestion Pricing bill is not currently subject to SEQR–the State Environmental Quality Review Act.  http://www.dos.state.ny.us/lgss/seqr.htm

I asked why this should be of such a concern that Glick would risk shooting down the whole Congestion Pricing bill and federal funding for better mass transit. Swidorski responded that Glick’s worried any work to expand the subways could "negatively impact the air."

That’s right folks: Glick is worried that expanding the subways might "NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE AIR."

"There will be digging, there will be debris," Swidorski said.

Forgoing SEQR, Swidorski added, would set a terrible precedent for state law.

I’m not one to argue for sidestepping environmental reviews. But it would seem to me that the environmental benefits of reducing traffic congestion and expanding mass transit are really a no brainer here. I’m not sure why we have to waste a lot of time and precious capital to verify what we already know–less cars and more mass transit are good for the environment.

Supporters of the environment and Congestion Pricing should call Glick’s office and let her know that.

Here’s the digits:

District Office: 212-674-5153
Albany Office: 518-455-4841

glickd@assembly.state.ny.us

  • Angus Grieve-Smith

    Any subway expansion work would go through an EIS process, surely?

  • Larry Littlefield

    (Any subway expansion work would go through an EIS process, surely?)

    The only subway expansions we are likely (or perhaps unlikely) to get already have.

    More to the point, someone needs to reassure Glick that all those garbage trucks carrying Manhattan recyclable garbage to Brooklyn would be exempt from the charge. I believe Manhattan garbage is picked up overnight, no?

  • jmc

    Wow, she’s either just being deceitful or she’s as dumb as a sack of potatoes.

  • JF

    Dinowitz is at least consistent. He’s had that same nutty position for seven months and counting:

    http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/09/06/on-behalf-of-52-of-his-constituents-dinowitz-opposes-pricing/#comment-36792

    Dinowitz represents not only Kingsbridge, but Norwood and Woodlawn as well.

    If I lived in his district, I’d be out there right now organizing a coalition to support a challenger. Dinowitz has put it down in the clearest terms that he cares about the asthma rates of Jewish kids in Riverdale, but not about Puerto Rican kids in Kingsbridge, Black kids in Norwood or Irish kids in Woodlawn. Just walk up and down Broadway, Jerome Avenue or Katonah Avenue and show people copies of Dinowitz’s editorials, and you could probably find a dozen Assembly candidates right there.

  • Davis

    If Glick does not face a smart, strong, well-financed candidate in the Democratic primary then NYC politics is totally broken.

    Is there a good Council member being term limited out of a job who could run against her? Who do we got down there? Quinn? Nope. Gerson? Yeesh. OK, I guess NYC politics is broken!

    Wait, how about Ian Dutton!?

  • Shemp

    There’s gotta be someone in that district ready to run in the next cycle – DG’s obviously gotten pretty crusty and stale during her over-long tenure there.

  • The point at which we don’t dig subway tunnels because we’re afraid of dirt polluting the air is the end of civilization. I will never understand how people that indulge in homemade technophobias (vaccines, cleaning products, radio waves, and now a permanent DEBRIS SCARE—thanks terrorists) can go outside and confidently breathe in the tailpipe emissions of a hundred different unknown vehicles. Nope, no carcinogens in this mix obviously!

  • Streetsman

    Any work resulting from CP funds would have to do its own separate EIS. And the only real impacts of congestion pricing will be changes in traffic patterns.

    Given that the CP bill promises a full EIS prior to September 1 implementation, what’s the problem here?

  • Serum

    We’d get much better reps and reduce state government’s carbon footprint if we moved the state capital to NYC.

  • Larry Littlefield

    (If Glick does not face a smart, strong, well-financed candidate in the Democratic primary then NYC politics is totally broken.)

    If enough people realize that NYC politics is totally broken, perhaps there is an outside chance it might get fixed.

    But getting on the ballot is no joke, and running for office often means the loss of a job and its associated income. And unless you have an open seat, it is virtually impossible to win, and even the press ignores you. Which is why no one does it. And then, when they finally decide to retire, they do so mid-term so they can collectively pick the successor, who is then an incumbent.

    They’ve pretty much got us, and do not have to care.

  • Spud Spudly

    Even I choked on the CO2 wafting up from my Diet Caffeine Free Coke when I heard this one. Silly.

  • tstaniec

    Again with politicians erroneously citing that SEQR will not be done on the pricing bill. Creating a pricing structure does not require an ENVIRONMENTAL review. Granted, the revenue seems to be earmarked for transportation projects, however, it is the impact of THESE projects that are subject to the environmental review process. The SEQR process is working just fine…because nothing has been proposed yet that requires such a review.

  • Spud Spudly

    That’s just wrong. As I said before, the only reason this might not require SEQRA treatment is because it would be an act of the State legislature. The idea that a plan that intends to drastically alter the traffic patterns of the entire region — which will potentially relocate pollution, congestion and noise from one neighborhood to another even if the overall effect is to diminish all three — wouldn’t normally be SEQRA material is ridiculous.

    Heck, just the infrastructure required to snap pretty little black-and-white photos of the cars going in and out of the zone would normally trigger a full review.

  • Abba

    The legislation under review to authorize pricing includes environmental review – you wouldn’t be seeing major advocacy and lobbying support from national greens like NRDC and EDF otherwise. Glick is just wrong/disinforming. She’s Manhattan’s version of Brodsky.

  • Matt

    Section 1709 of the publicly available legislation specifically requires the city to perform an EIS.

    Furthermore, any subway construction would have to undergo its own EIS.

    Glick is just wrong.

  • sam spade

    I called and got a much more rational response from glick’s office and never got the alleged comment about subways negatively impacting the air. Sometimes I just wonder about the information on this blog lately. are people getting crazy?

    yes black cars and rich businesses should pay their fair share and groups like god’s love we deliver should get an exemption. and it’s not crazy to think” build luxury condo everywhere Bloomberg” wouldn’t try to gut environmental laws. After all didn’t he want that huge stadium and isn’t he supporting related’s circus on the hudson in our park? Come on folks- glick’s been fighting against overdevelopment for years. sam spade

  • Sheila

    and it’s not crazy to think” build luxury condo everywhere Bloomberg” wouldn’t try to gut environmental laws.

    Actually, Sam, it is crazy for an Assembly member to think that this is about gutting the enivro regulations. Read the bill, talk to the NRDC and Environmental Defense, look at what the results of road pricing have been in London and are projected to be in Glick’s district — 120,000 fewer cars per day on the streets. It really IS crazy to talk about this as an anti-enviro measure — as if these regulations from the 70s are more important than actual outcomes.

    Frankly, it IS crazy for Glick to be leading with her various concerns. She should be leading with support and brokering her concerns behind closed doors with the Bloomberg people. Because Glick and her Lower Manhattan colleagues refuse to lead, all we have is Richard Brodsky and his Westchester interests setting the agenda.

    How is it acceptable to New York City legislators that they are allowing their colleague from Westchester with the wealthiest car commuters in the entire region to set the transportation policy agenda for the city? Now that is, fucking crazy. Glick should flat out be ashamed of herself. Rarely has a district been more poorly represented on such an important issue.

  • Downtown Girl

    Some facts about Glick you should know, which may explain why she behaves so.

    Glick slept her way into office. That’s right.

    Around 1990, she began to date Kelli Conlon, head of NY NARAL.

    On Election Day, 1991, her 66th A.D. was inundated by scores of feminists and lesbians from NARAL canvassing for Glick (nothing wrong with that lifestyle, of course, but clearly an outside agenda trumped community concerns on election day and we all still are suffering.)

    Her two opponents could not match the election day electioneering effort pumped out by Glick’s girlfriend.

    Prior to this, Glick’s political experience was being a non-descript member of CB2. She did not even chair a committee.

    Her biggest accomplishment in the workplace before being elected was working in her father’s copy shop in Queens as a Xerox operator. What a skill set she has!

    Her two opponents, two community activists with great credentials, split the activist and community vote, and Glick squeaked in on the ideologue vote.

    Her first speech on the floor of the Assembly was AGAINST putting warning labels on liquor and in bars warning pregnant women against drinking alcohol, because “it discriminates against women” ( I kid you not. You know any pregnant men? And you think this ideologue cares if the children have Fetal Alcohol Syndrome?)

    Glick voted against the 1996 Clean Water and Air Bill, which mandated, among loads of environmentally friendly issues, the removal of coal burning furnaces in school. Glick has no problem with our school kids breathing smog! Of course, she has no children, so forget empathy let alone sympathy.

    She opposed the creation of the Hudson River Park. Glick even opposed even putting in toilets there because it would bring more people into her precious little district of the insular West Village. She even opposed the building of a kayak shed for free kayaking on the Hudson, because “once you have a one-story shed, the next thing is a 30-story luxury condo.”)

    Glick opposed the law which mandates notifying the medical authorities if a pregnant woman was HIV positive, because “it violates the mother’s right of privacy”. (Forget that it may violate the babies right to live.)

    Glick opposes putting a recycling station in her district, preferring the trash be TRUCKED through poor neighborhoods in the Bronx and Brooklyn.

    Glick is not reformer. She is bought and sold by Boss Shelly Silver, who keeps her in his back pocket.

    One could go on and on about her. On a personal level, she is irascible, mean-spirited, vengeful, dogmatic, and not exceptionally bright.

  • Mark

    Jeez, if that’s all it takes to get elected to the state assembly, I’ll run. Sounds like just the mindless dream job I had in mind.

  • Shemp

    Yes, and the anger you’re seeing in the Assembly is because these do-nothing schmucks are finally being forced to deal with a real issue.

  • Ian D

    Davis, in #5:

    Is there a good Council member being term limited out of a job who could run against her? Who do we got down there? Quinn? Nope. Gerson? Yeesh. OK, I guess NYC politics is broken!

    Wait, how about Ian Dutton!?

    I’m going to print this out and put it on my wall, just like the restaurants tape their first dollar bill to the wall!! My vote count stands at a respectable 1 (maybe 2 if I can get my wife, Shea).

    What’s really funny is as I read this, I was on the phone with Alan regarding his achievements negotiating his “yes” vote on CP.

    Among the expected candidates for Chris Quinn’s seat are CB2 Chair Brad Hoylman and Andrew Berman (Exec. Director, GV Soc. for Hist. Preservation). If we don’t see Deborah come around on CP, I’d be interested in whoever doesn’t end up with Quinn’s seat challenging Glick (not likely, though).

    And I’ll proudly brag about my 1 (2?) vote(s).

  • taylor

    she’s either

    a) lying
    b) frighteningly uninformed about this issue
    c) insane
    d) a moron

    any one of which makes her unelectable.

  • Debra Glick is right about the subway construction’s adverse effect on regional air quality. Consider the following surpressed by PlaNYC and the MTA:

    REGIONAL EMISSIONS FROM CONSTRUCTION-RELATED SPOILS AND MATERIALS TRANSPORT

    “Because of the large scale and extended duration of the construction required for the Second Avenue Subway, the construction could potentially increase regional concentrations of ozone precursors-NOx and VOCs-as well as fine particulate matter (PM2.5), all of which are pollutants of concern on a regional basis.” (Federal Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS 11-18).

    In addition, although construction of the Second Avenue Subway has just begun in the area from 91st to 97th Streets, the impact on trees, birds and squirrels has been quite the opposite of the ambitious plans described in PlaNYC. In this regard, The New York Bird Club sent out the following invitation to a meeting At the New York Blood Center on June 7 to protest tree removal by the New York City Department of Parks in order to allegedly facilitate construction of the Second Avenue Subway:

    “Due to the construction of the 2nd Ave subway, there already have been removed at least 40 trees along 2nd Ave. The next place to remove trees is by the park at 2nd Ave between 91-90th Streets. There are magnificent very large and lush sycamore and other trees on this block, perhaps that have been there for 100 years or so. They are marked to be removed sometime in the very near future. These trees are homes to squirrels and birds who already do not have enough greenery to survive, and the trees also provide beauty, shade and clean-air for people.”

  • A Squirrel

    Squirrels Against Congestion Pricing!
    Driving Tax Unfair to Squirrels!
    Squirrels for Glick!
    Trees Against Public Transit!

  • sam spade

    so I guess Downtown Girl is one fo the 2 women, or a supporter of one, who ran against glick and lost. Is this how we hope to move someone’s opinion? Environmental groups have always given glick high marks so I question the info- besides she’s been out there fighting for park space and has worked with folks to provide an alterntive to taking our scarce park land for a transfer station and that alternative is only blocks north – so maybe the city isn’t willing to negotiate on that- or maybe some of the quirks in CP- maybe it can get done with some adjustments.

  • Downtown Girl

    In case you do not know him, George N. Spitz is one of those curmudgeons who perennially runs for office, but gets about 1-2% of the vote, from the Gadfly contingent.

    He is not to be taken seriously, although he is serious. He is also a bit of an egomaniac

    He would have 40 trees stand in the way of a Second Avenue Subway.

    And aren’t squirrels just rats with fancy fur coats and better PR?

  • Downtown Girl

    Sam Spade in #25 writes:

    “so I guess Downtown Girl is one fo (sic) the 2 women, or a supporter of one, who ran against glick and lost.”

    Sam, you guess wrong!

    First of all, your knowledge or lack thereof is obvious in your opening sentence. Glick’s opponents in 1991 were not “2 women’, as you claim. One was a woman and one was a man.
    For the record, I am neither of her opponents, nor one of their supporters, other than voting for one of them.

    Good try but you don’t win the cigar.

    Everything I wrote about Glick’s voting record and positions is true.

    She voted against the “Clean Water, Clean Air Act”, even though one of the schools in her district, Chelsea Vocational, was spewing out coal fumes throughout her district.

    Her office has been picketed by poor people from the Bronx because she wants them to have garbage trucks go through their neighborhood, instead of having the West Village get its Fair Share.

    Her opposition to HIV testing for mothers and her opposition to the warning on liquor bottles is also well known.

    So please get your facts straight.

    One more thing which is telling about Glick.

    She ran for Manhattan in 2007 in a ten-way race, and lost. This led to her one and only editorial in the Daily News.

    Rather than accepting her loss gracefully, the News editors wrote the day after the election, at her party following the closing of the polls, Glick told her supporters:
    “I lost because I am a lesbian.” (The victor was a black woman, by the way, Virginia Fields)

    The News was wise enough to see through this disgusting use of Crying Wolf, and condemned her for it, famously concluding with:
    “Glick did not lose the race because she is a lesbian. She lost because she did not campaign beyond the confines of her election district”

    So, please, do not tell me how wonderful this person is. She is not as bad as some, but it is time she gets replaced.

    Debbie, for the sake of your constituents, move on. There still may be a job opening somewhere as a Xerox operator, or collecting tolls when CP goes into effect.

  • sam spade

    so downturn girl- it was a 5 way race in 1990- so whoever is feeding you your info is mistaken- 2 men and 3 women- and in 1997 glick came in second and probably lost because of her strong anti development stand which riled the ny times- the old grey lady that never saw a mega development it didn’t like.

  • Niccolo Machiavelli

    I think Downtown Girl is hot. She may have slipped up on some math but Deborah belongs to one of those NIMBY clicks that never saw a development they did like. She clearly belongs to the CAVE Community Against Virtually Everything. My neighborhood is one of those that gets her garbage transferred because he neighborhood is too pristine, clearly.

  • Sarah Ferguson

    Responding to Sam Spade’s earlier post #17 suggesting my reporting of what Glick’s aide said was somehow exaggerated or disengenous:

    I’ve been a journalist for nearly 20 years, and tho I wasn’t acting in that capacity when I called Glick’s office, I fully stand by what I reported.

    I didn’t act as a reporter in part because I was frankly aghast at what Ms. Swidorski said about the negative impacts of expanded subway construction on the air. What I quoted were her words, not mine.

    I totally agree with Sheila’s comments above that while Glick may be right to stand up for enviro concerns, she is focusing on the trees instead of the forest and failing to show any real leadership here, as are many of the State Democrats.

    Sadly, Glick may be parroting the narrowcast line of many in the Green community when it comes to this SEQRA objection.

    Someone sent me this letter from Assemblymember William Colton, 47th AD, who is pitching a similar concern about SEQRA.

    Obviously there are many reasons not to like Congestion Pricing, not least of which is that it’s generally a regressive tax. The problem is, how else are we PRACTICALLY going to reduce traffic in the city and raise revenues for mass transit?

    Should we mandate hybrid vehicles? Have license plate rationing as Colton suggests? I’m sure there would be howls about that. How do you pay for the cops or additional cameras and surveillance required to ensure that drivers are carpooling into the city? WOuldn’t that entail even further civil liberties encroachments?

    Or should we go back to arguing that the federal government really SHOULD be subsidizing greener transit and keep praying for that rainy day to arrive?

    Subject: [manhattangreens] Against Congestion Pricing plan (William Colton)
    To: BrooklynGreens@yahoogroups.com

    From: WILLIAM COLTON

    Dear Friend,

    I do not support the congestion pricing plan which has been passed by the City Council.

    The biggest problem with this congestion pricing proposal is that it
    sets a very bad precedent by setting aside the SEQRA requirements for
    an environmental impact study before undertaking a major project. The requirement that an Environmental Impact Study be completed before a major project is approved is critical to protecting people from the consequences of bad projects.

    I believe the refusal to do such an EIS is because this proposal does
    not really achieve a reduction of congestion but rather seeks to
    impose a regressive tax on families. It fails to include elements
    which might be effective at reducing the environmental impacts of
    traffic congestion, such as favoring green low gas and hybrid
    vehicles, encouraging cars with two and three riders, making a fee
    progressive with income, targeting black cars and taxis (which equal
    40% of all cars in the Manhattan congestion zone), and enforcing
    higher fines for illegal and double parking in congestion zone,
    eliminating the credit for tolls (which will exempt most of the
    congestion fee for New Jersey and Conn. drivers), establishing some
    form of rationing such as prohibiting vehicles with odd or even
    license plates to odd or even days, thereby encouraging car pooling, etc.

    But the real goal of the proposal is to provide a new revenue source
    from the middle class and working poor. . Even worse, the failure of
    the plan to require such additional revenues be used to make public
    transit more accessible and affordable for the families of our
    neighborhoods instead of allowing it to fund major capital projects
    favored by developers is hypocritical and dooms any hope for making
    public transit more accessible and affordable or for any real hope of
    a reduction in congestion.

    In fact passage of this plan will almost guarantee a large fare
    increase because whatever monies which are given to the MTA will not
    be used to pay for public transit improvements but instead will be
    used to collateralize borrowing which will result in higher future
    interest payments which public transit users will need to repay with
    higher fares. Therefore it will not encourage people to use cars
    since use of mass transit will be almost as expensive. The congestion
    fee will impact on those with low and middle incomes and will have
    little impact on the wealthy who will simply use it as a business deduction.

    There are many more arguments against this plan but these are some
    very major ones which require me to vote no in order to protect the
    families of our neighborhood .

    Thanks,
    Bill

  • Sarah Ferguson

    Responding to Sam Spade’s earlier post #17 suggesting my reporting of what Glick’s aide said was somehow exaggerated or disengenous:

    I’ve been a journalist for nearly 20 years, and tho I wasn’t acting in that capacity when I called Glick’s office, I fully stand by what I reported.

    I didn’t act as a reporter in part because I was frankly aghast at what Ms. Swidorski said about the negative impacts of expanded subway construction on the air. What I quoted were her words, not mine.

    I totally agree with Sheila’s comments above that while Glick may be right to stand up for enviro concerns, she is focusing on the trees instead of the forest and failing to show any real leadership here, as are many of the State Democrats.

    Sadly, Glick may be parroting the narrowcast line of many in the Green community when it comes to this SEQRA objection.

    Someone sent me this letter from Assemblymember William Colton, 47th AD, who is pitching a similar concern about SEQRA.

    Obviously there are many reasons not to like Congestion Pricing, not least of which is that it’s generally a regressive tax. The problem is, how else are we PRACTICALLY going to reduce traffic in the city and raise revenues for mass transit?

    Should we mandate hybrid vehicles? Have license plate rationing as Colton suggests? I’m sure there would be howls about that. How do you pay for the cops or additional cameras and surveillance required to ensure that drivers are carpooling into the city? WOuldn’t that entail even further civil liberties encroachments?

    Or should we go back to arguing that the federal government really SHOULD be subsidizing greener transit and keep praying for that rainy day to arrive?

    Subject: [manhattangreens] Against Congestion Pricing plan (William Colton)
    To: BrooklynGreens@yahoogroups.com

    From: WILLIAM COLTON

    Dear Friend,

    I do not support the congestion pricing plan which has been passed by the City Council.

    The biggest problem with this congestion pricing proposal is that it
    sets a very bad precedent by setting aside the SEQRA requirements for
    an environmental impact study before undertaking a major project. The requirement that an Environmental Impact Study be completed before a major project is approved is critical to protecting people from the consequences of bad projects.

    I believe the refusal to do such an EIS is because this proposal does
    not really achieve a reduction of congestion but rather seeks to
    impose a regressive tax on families. It fails to include elements
    which might be effective at reducing the environmental impacts of
    traffic congestion, such as favoring green low gas and hybrid
    vehicles, encouraging cars with two and three riders, making a fee
    progressive with income, targeting black cars and taxis (which equal
    40% of all cars in the Manhattan congestion zone), and enforcing
    higher fines for illegal and double parking in congestion zone,
    eliminating the credit for tolls (which will exempt most of the
    congestion fee for New Jersey and Conn. drivers), establishing some
    form of rationing such as prohibiting vehicles with odd or even
    license plates to odd or even days, thereby encouraging car pooling, etc.

    But the real goal of the proposal is to provide a new revenue source
    from the middle class and working poor. . Even worse, the failure of
    the plan to require such additional revenues be used to make public
    transit more accessible and affordable for the families of our
    neighborhoods instead of allowing it to fund major capital projects
    favored by developers is hypocritical and dooms any hope for making
    public transit more accessible and affordable or for any real hope of
    a reduction in congestion.

    In fact passage of this plan will almost guarantee a large fare
    increase because whatever monies which are given to the MTA will not
    be used to pay for public transit improvements but instead will be
    used to collateralize borrowing which will result in higher future
    interest payments which public transit users will need to repay with
    higher fares. Therefore it will not encourage people to use cars
    since use of mass transit will be almost as expensive. The congestion
    fee will impact on those with low and middle incomes and will have
    little impact on the wealthy who will simply use it as a business deduction.

    There are many more arguments against this plan but these are some
    very major ones which require me to vote no in order to protect the
    families of our neighborhood .

    Thanks,
    Bill

  • jmc

    Oh right, this is the same Glick that hates the solid waste management plan, and instead prefers to have garbage trucked around through poor neighborhoods.

    What a useless sack of rotten potatoes. She needs to go!

  • Spud Spudly

    That I don’t fault her for. She is after all elected to represent the needs of her district.

  • Ian D

    I can’t believe I’m going to defend Deborah a little here, because I’m not liking the signals I get from her office (just got off the phone, getting nowhere).

    But as far as the waste mgmt plan, she and Tom Duane have proposed two alternatives that would be cost-effective and would preserve the Hudson River Park Act’s goal of restoring the waterfront as a place for people. Both alternatives would site the transfer station in the district – one using a different pier and one using abandoned rails. Bloomberg/Quinn just won’t budge or consider NOT putting the recycling facility in the park. In addition, Sanitation is trying to drop a giant trash facility in Hudson Square at Canal and West St. so that they can hand off land to developers in the W. 30’s that has already been approved for the facility.

    But that’s getting off topic. Deborah, do the right thing for the district, what the community boards and Democratic clubs have endorsed: support congestion pricing.

  • Downtown Girl

    Sam Spade:

    What I read of your comments was obfuscation, irrelevance, and nothing germane to Glick’s record.

    How about addressing the issues I raised, not what position(second, fifth, or last) she came in the 1997 BP race(she lost, hello) or if there were three, or five, or fifty candidates in 1991.

    Issues Like:
    – Her election to public office due to nepotistic efforts on the part of her lover.

    – Her lack of any serious skills before becoming Assemblymember (most lawmakers are lawyers, city planners, political science majors, not copy clerks. Again, nepotism works wonders.)

    – Her opposition to the Hudson River Park Act that created that wonderful park. The reason:it would bring more ‘outsiders’ into the West Village.

    – Voting against CLEAN WATER, CLEAN AIR BOND ACT

    – Voting against warning labels on booze bottles

    – Voting against notifying pediatric doctors if a pregnant woman was HIV+

    -Speaking out against installing a toilet in the Hudson River Park, because it was ‘development’

    -Speaking out against having a one-story wooden shed for FREE kayaking because it was ‘development’.

    – Not wanting a Recycling Center in her precious district

    -“Sleeping” with Boss Silver

    – Her ridiculous claim this week that everyone on Streetsblog but you seems to think is absurd, namely: “Glick’s worried any work to expand the subways could “negatively impact the air.”

    Please address these issues, or perhaps you cannot.

    As far as praising her for her efforts at stopping inappropriate development, that is a smoke screen. As a NY State official, there is little she can do to pull permits or exert influence against NY City projects, except complain.

    She talks anti-development. Meanwhile her district is being inundated with high-rise development. Andrew Berman, a civilian working for a non-profit, has done more to stop development in her district than Glick has.

    She opposed a free public toilet on the pier because, quote: “a 6″ water main for a toilet soon becomes a 36″ water main for a luxury condo” (I couldn’t make this nuttiness up.)

    So, people have to pee in the street or on themselves, and the Richard Meier towers are going up non-stop on West Street like mushrooms after a rain. What good is she!

    Will someone, anyone please challenge her next election. Just to make her do some work for once in 16 years.

  • JF

    I have inside information that Glick is actually quite pro-pricing. She understands the value to the environment of getting that many cars off the streets. She’s taking an anti-pricing stance only because she’s being blackmailed by Walter McCaffrey with evidence linking her to a high-priced lesbian call-girl ring.

    Not really, just kidding.

  • Red

    It’s fine with me if Glick doesn’t like the SWMP – that’s no reason for Silver to hold it up. He should have just brought it to the floor and let Glick cast her protest vote.

  • gecko

    In the midst of an accelerating climate change crisis asking for an environmental impact statement (EIS) for congestion pricing is like asking Joan of Arc if she’d like a thermometer.

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

Congestion Pricing Questions the Mayor Will Need to Answer

|
New York State Assembly Member Deborah Glick represents Chelsea, Greenwich Village, Tribeca and a good piece of Chinatown and Lower Manhattan. Encompassing the Holland Tunnel, Canal Street and a section of the Westside Highway, her district suffers from some of the worst traffic congestion in all of New York City. Transit-rich and offering some of […]

Glick’s Excuse: Everything But the Kitchen Sink

|
Welcome to Glickville As Deborah Glick herself would tell you, no state legislator had more reason to support congestion pricing than she did. In a district where 95.4 percent of working residents would not have paid the charge, where households with a car are outnumbered by households sans vehicle three to one, and which nonetheless […]

Assembly Member Deborah Glick: Angry Fence-Sitter

|
New Jersey traffic headed toward Chelsea Tuesday evening Constituents of Lower Manhattan Assembly Member Deborah Glick have a lot to gain from congestion pricing, but they should not assume their representative will vote for the plan once (or if) it reaches Albany. Meeting with a group of advocates who traveled from the city yesterday, Glick […]

One More Chance to Support Pricing: Call Your Reps Today!

|
We’ve said it before and we’ll say it again: Congestion pricing is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to enact progressive transportation policy for New York City. With the midnight deadline to receive $354 million in federal aid approaching in a matter of hours, now is the last chance to call your representatives in Albany to express your […]