God’s Love: We’re Not Against Congestion Pricing

God’s Love We Deliver operates its kitchen out of this building on Spring Street.

Richard Brodsky may have overplayed his hand in his latest attempt to cast congestion pricing as the bane of the less fortunate.

As we noted Wednesday, after Brodsky received a letter from the charity God’s Love We Deliver asking for a congestion fee exemption, he began using the organization’s request to paint his opponents as cruel and insensitive. In a phone interview this morning, God’s Love spokesman Gary Snieski clarified the position of his organization, which delivers meals from its kitchen in Manhattan to seriously ill people throughout the region.

"We’re not against congestion pricing," he said. "What we’re trying to do is work within the congestion pricing initiative and safeguard the interests of our clients." They want an exemption, yes, but not a total collapse of the proposal.

Nor did God’s Love intend their letter to become a battering ram for Brodsky. "Once that letter was sent out, the way it was used, we had no control over that," Snieski said, noting that by pitting God’s Love against Greyhound (which has received an exemption), Brodsky had created a conflict where none existed before. "He made a very polarized comparison between us and Greyhound that put us in an awkward position."

Having read some of the comments on Streetsblog’s original post, Snieski made his case for granting a fee exemption to God’s Love. The organization’s 16 delivery vehicles must operate during peak hours to deliver meals for clients on strict medication schedules, he said. They do not have the funds to move their kitchen outside the congestion zone.

When I asked if a congestion fee would be offset by lessening costs already incurred by traffic, Snieski said that drivers do get stuck in traffic, but not to the extent that God’s Love must pay them overtime. They’re usually back at headquarters by 4 or 5. Still, he agrees that traffic is a big problem.

"We’re out in this traffic every day. We know how horrific it is, so we’re not against [congestion pricing]."

Photo: kchbrown/Flickr

  • Deliver!

    Nice work, Ben!

    So what is God’s Love doing to make sure their concern is unspun from Brodsky’s missive?

    Are they creating a press release to send to all the Albany electeds urging them to strongly support CP?

    Should this article be faxed to every fax machine in Albany?

    Has God’s Love ever considered using bicycle powered rickshaws, a la Birdbath Bakery (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/magazine/20food-t.html) to make deliveries? That would certainly cut down on their delivery costs. I’m sure there’s a network of cyclists who’d be happy to volunteer that shift!

    What are the complicating factors of asthma and air pollution on AIDS patients?

    In short, is God’s Love We Deliver ready to step up to the plate and turn lemon into lemonade?

  • Mark

    GLWD initiated this whole thing by writing to Brodsky — when they could have written to Bloomberg or Sakik-Khan. They knew exactly what they were doing. And you know what? The world is full of great charities that aren’t in bed with Brodsky and the anti-CP, anti-transit, pro-congestion, pro-pollution, pro-noise, pro-ped-death, pro-car crowd. Now the frantic backpedaling. What disgusting behavior.

  • Deliver!

    Mark (#2) With all due respect, let’s assume GLWD doesn’t read Streetsblog every day. Perhaps Brodsky conned them into directing the letter to his attention. I can hear the conversation right now.

    RB: I heard you’re gonna go bankrupt if CP passes. Let me help. Just write me a letter explaining your concerns. Make sure the president signs it, on fancy letterhead.
    GLWD: Thanks Rich, I’ll have something to you by Monday.
    RB: (Under his breath) Score!!!!!!

  • Lew from Brooklyn

    Sigh. Another group that supports the charge as long as they don’t have to pay it.

    Lew from Brooklyn

  • JF

    That’s the point, Lew. Despite your overheated rhetoric, almost nobody will have to pay it, except for a few overprivileged drivers who are currently wasting our tax money.

  • Melky Cabrera

    How can you support congestion pricing if you want to be exempt from the fee?

  • rlb

    An interesting comment Melky.
    In the quotes from the posting, GLWD seems to go out of there way to not say they support congestion pricing. Instead they say they are not against it, which are the accusations. I would hesitate to say that they are neutral, but I think they are either too modest or realize the hypocritical nature of outright saying ‘we want congestion pricing and to be exempt from it.’
    Snieski doesn’t seem to realize that the reduction in traffic would probably let him get away with fewer trucks and fewer drivers. Regardless, a non profit that provides a service to the needy and necessarily relies on driving around to provide that service should be exempt.

  • Ace

    I heard a spokesperson from this organization on the radio this morning saying that they were against congestion pricing because of the added expense. If I recall they quoted $87,000 as the amount it would cost them.

    I can’t imagine there aren’t provisions to exempt such groups?

    For me, the damage is done and I would never make a donation to them.

  • Mark

    Given the timing — with the CP vote coming Monday in the state legislature — it’s hard to interpret GLWD’s stance as anything but anti-pricing.

    To save itself 87 grand, GLWD is willing to see the transit system deprived of hundreds of millions a year.


  • The Staff of God’s Love We Deliver

    While all of your readers may not agree with the position that God’s Love We Deliver has taken on our need for an exemption within the congestion pricing legislation, we still want to clarify a few points that have been on your blog these last few days.

    God’s Love We Deliver appreciates the efforts of Assemblyman Brodsky and many other Assembly members who have shown their support for God’s Love and our attempt to secure an exemption from the congestion pricing fees. These assembly representatives understand the urgency of God’s Love getting our freshly-prepared, nutritious, life-sustaining meals delivered on time to clients who are living with HIV/AIDS, cancer, Alzheimer’s disease and other life-altering illnesses.

    It is our belief that exemptions should be made for not-for-profit organizations such as ours that provide vital services to our most vulnerable neighbors throughout New York City. We would not be living up to our mission if we did not actively seek this accommodation.

    The Staff at God’s Love We Deliver

  • nobody

    Does GLWD staff get free Metrocards? Free parking?

  • Even charities can be selfish

    GLWD: And are you similarly seeking exemption from gas taxes, tolls and parking fees? Why single this one charge out?

  • “We would not be living up to our mission if we did not actively seek this accommodation.”

    There is a cost to your demand for last minute exemptions as well; it is alienating the next generation of your fundraising base. Being a tool of the congestion pricing opposition will lose you more than $8 per van per business day and it certainly isn’t living up to any mission.

  • Mark
  • If God’s Love We Deliver is really not opposed to congestion pricing, they’d stop tossing around that $87,000 figure. The Mayor’s office was very clear that anything that could be described as a “van” would pay $8 per day, not $21.

  • galvo

    i think the biggest problem for congestion pricng is like the placards, how to enforce that only the correct people get the exemptions. There are many non profits that are basically scams . (not glwd) i am sure those will be the first in line for exemptions as they also already use the illegal placards. All the ambulance/ ems placards seen in commuter cars in Manhattan for the ambulance core in Brooklyn.
    why not get fleets of legalized vans that pick up the slack from the overcrowded and late running buses. Metrofare priced 10 person slim van that ran shortened routes in midtown may appeal to the masses, but the taxi lobbyist would be busy fighting that.

  • Food for thought

    I wonder how many pizzas Domino’s delivers in the CBD every day…by bicycle!

    I don’t hear them complaining about CP!

  • dbs

    I wonder what Freddie Mercury, the first celebrity AIDS casualty, would say, if he knew GLWD didn’t deliver their meals via bicycle???

    Not ready to throw the hat in yet, but if CP goes down, I nominate Freddie as the official CP martyr.

    …in which case the 11/07 David Byrne How New Yorkers Ride Bikes event finale,the Young@Heart Chorus rendition of Bicycle Race was frighteningly prescient…and if CP prevail, it’d make a fine victory song!

    Queen – Bicycle Race – Uncensored

    Bicycle bicycle bicycle
    I want to ride my bicycle bicycle bicycle

    I want to ride my bicycle
    I want to ride my bike
    I want to ride my bicycle
    I want to ride it where I like

    You say black I say white
    You say bark I say bite
    You say shark I say hey man
    Jaws was never my scene
    And I don’t like Star Wars
    You say Rolls I say Royce
    You say God give me a choice
    You say Lord I say Christ
    I don’t believe in Peter Pan
    Frankenstein or Superman
    All I wanna do is

    Bicycle bicycle bicycle
    I want to ride my bicycle bicycle bicycle
    I want to ride my bicycle
    I want to ride my bike
    I want to ride my bicycle
    I want to ride my

    Bicycle races are coming your way
    So forget all your duties oh yeah
    Fat bottomed girls they’ll be riding today
    So look out for those beauties oh yeah
    On your marks get set go
    Bicycle race bicycle race bicycle race

    Bicycle bicycle bicycle
    I want to ride my bicycle bicycle
    Bicycle bicycle bicycle
    Bicycle race

    You say coke I say caine
    You say John I say Wayne
    Hot dog I say cool it man
    I don’t wanna be the President of America
    You say smile I say cheese
    Cartier I say please
    Income tax I say Jesus
    I don’t wanna be a candidate for
    Vietnam or Watergate
    Cause all I wanna do is

    Bicycle bicycle bicycle
    I want to ride my bicycle bicycle bicycle
    I want to ride my bicycle
    I want to ride my bike
    I want to ride my bicycle
    I want to ride it where I like

  • Now I’m Curious

    How exactly does the IGLWD work? It uses fleets of vans to collect donations from restaurants (most presumably in Manhattan) which are eventually delivered as individual meals to individual households throughout the city? Does that mean the food goes back to a central location to be sub-divided, and then back out again in vans? I’ve never seen one. How do they park?
    I have worked and organized many, many non-profits over the years and know that the sector suffers from terrible business models. Is this one cost-effective and environmentally sustainable? The only way to know is to subject it to actual costs — and then make the objective policy decision of how to exempt or charge them. IGLWD needs to understand that their operation — regardless of how noble — imposes its own costs on the world. They have a moral responsbility to be aware of this, as much as all charities must inform their donors how much of their financial contributions go to the mission and how much to overhead and fundraising.

  • I’m PRO congestion pricing but this current bill is a dog. Thousands of citizen comments were heard and ignored by the Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission.

    So, because I don’t support the bill as it stands, does that automatically make me part of the “anti-CP, anti-transit, pro-congestion, pro-pollution, pro-noise, pro-ped-death, pro-car crowd.”?

    I don’t think so. And I think many of you are being overly harsh regarding GLWD.

    Where are the provisions for increased traffic enforcement? Where are the provisions for reform at the MTA, that well-known bastion of profligate spending to little effect? Where are the serious disincentives for drivers coming from Long Island, Westchester, Connecticut and New Jersey—most of these would only pay an additional $2.00?

    No, the current bill will do little to improve mass transit, will probably not produce much of a reduction to current traffic volume in Manhattan, will likely cause increased traffic and pollution in the outer boroughs, and the costs fall disproportionately upon outer-borough residents.

    Last time I checked, people from Brooklyn, the Bronx, Richmond and Queens were legal New York City residents, fully deserving of the same reductions in pollution and benefits to mass transit as are those of you from Manhattan. Drivers from those locations constitute the smallest percentage of drivers entering the congestion zone, yet will pay the highest cost and reap the least benefit. Doesn’t seem equitable, does it?

    We need the benefits congestion pricing can bring, but not at any cost. A better plan is in order.

  • JF

    Where are the serious disincentives for drivers coming from Long Island, Westchester, Connecticut and New Jersey—most of these would only pay an additional $2.00?

    The serious disincentives are already in place. If they’re not serious enough for you, feel free to propose raising the charge.

    The complaints about New Jersey drivers fail to stand up to any kind of scrutiny, and the complaints about the charge “falling disproportionately” on outer-borough residents are way overblown.


    Last time I checked, people from Brooklyn, the Bronx, Richmond and Queens were legal New York City residents, fully deserving of the same reductions in pollution and benefits to mass transit as are those of you from Manhattan.

    You realize that most of the people posting in favor of congestion pricing here are from Brooklyn and Queens? And that there are anti-CP commenters from Manhattan? Look at the map on the second page of this fact sheet:


    Notice how much of the reductions in pollution and benefits to mass transit “fall” on Brooklyn and Queens.

    If you don’t like the current bill, feel free to propose another one and get the many reluctant assemblymembers to sponsor it. Keep in mind that if no congestion pricing plan is passed, the taxpayers of New York City will continue to pay maintenance for bridges that primarily benefit an elite few, and the streets of Western Queens and North and South Brooklyn will continue to be clogged with cars and trucks going out of their way to use the “free” bridges. Doesn’t seem equitable, does it?

  • Jan

    I read those links that JF posted and they were weak at best. The first link contains reposting of posts that were originally on here. So that point is muted. JF, for future reference, when you try to make an argument it is better to have more evidence that saying since I said its true, its true.

    Regarding the second link, I see a reduction in traffic in Western Queens. I see that it represents about 10% of Queens as a whole, you know, LIC, one of the new branches of Manhattan. However, I don’t see the other benefits to Qns as a whole.

    Also, I’ve seen other posts on here about adding more trains to the E/F lines is a red herring. I am in the 74th & Roosevelt station every morning and there is NO more capacity on those lines during rush hour. Anyone who tries to take the E during rush hour at the Lex ave stop knows that, without a doubt. So again, how does Qns benefit as a whole?

    “You realize that most of the people posting in favor of congestion pricing here are from Brooklyn and Queens?” Just because the same 5 people on here post over and over and over and over and over and over doesn’t make most of Qns and Bklyn for CP.

    I am not for CP in its current incarnation but I am open to a revised plan and whether we get the paltry $354 million shouldn’t render this idea dead. It should be improved upon regardless of whether it passes or not.

    Also, the argument that this will not affect the CBD, take a look at today’s daily news report on how CP in London had a major impact on business (sorry, posting the link isn’t working). That said, whatever is eventually done will have an impact on business.

  • Mark

    Jan says: “I am not for CP in its current incarnation but I am open to a revised plan…”

    The current plan is the revised plan, generated by the commission Sheldon Silver demanded.

    So this argument is just more smoke and mirrors.

  • JF

    JF, for future reference, when you try to make an argument it is better to have more evidence that saying since I said its true, its true.

    The point was not to provide evidence but to save myself from having to type the same thing over and over again. But there is some evidence in that post, namely the fact that the Port Authority raised its tolls very recently, practices congestion pricing, and will use that money for transit links to Manhattan.

    Regarding the second link, I see a reduction in traffic in Western Queens. I see that it represents about 10% of Queens as a whole, you know, LIC, one of the new branches of Manhattan. However, I don’t see the other benefits to Qns as a whole.

    Maybe you should look harder, because they’re pretty clearly described. Here are the rest of the fact sheets:


    Just because the same 5 people on here post over and over and over and over and over and over doesn’t make most of Qns and Bklyn for CP.

    No, that would be the poll results, which, despite the Quinnipiac spin, show most of Brooklyn and Queens in favor of CP with the funds going to benefit transit. (Cue the “But you can’t trust the MTA!” nonsense.)

    However, my point wasn’t about what most of Queens and Brooklyn think, but about where most of the Streetsblog commenters in favor of CP are from.

    I am not for CP in its current incarnation

    So you’re in favor of the current system? Everyone has problems with the current plan, but every plan that’s been proposed – even Brodsky’s disingenuous proposals – would be an improvement on the current situation.

    Here’s the Daily News article you mentioned:


  • Jan

    It isn’t smoke and mirrors. I am not for this plan as it stands with revisions, et al.

    And be more precise in your statements. I didn’t argue for anything, I stated my opinion. That is not an argument. I am not taking a position on behalf of anyone else, just myself. So when you said that “this argument is just more smoke and mirrors”, there is no argument.

    But I love how you immediately go to the default setting of “smoke and mirrors” regarding anything that seems to go against your (ahem!) humble opinion. That doesn’t help you.

  • Jan

    JF, I am not in favor of the current proposal.

    How long have you lived in NY? Just wondering. Because not being able to trust the MTA is a FACT, not nonsense and you will never sway any NYer with the nonsense argument. You need to understand that long time residents have constant experience with the MTA and that is why the poll question was asked in the first place. It is not spin. To not have asked the question regarding whether people trust the MTA would have been spin. Do you see that? Sure, it hurts CP but wasteful spending hurts the taxpayer and its been going on for decades especially at the MTA. Fact. The sooner you face that then the better the CP plan can be or could have been.

    I did check the fact sheet out and the #1 listing is adding more cars to the E and F lines. See my original post and/or refer to the fact sheet.

    CP doesn’t have to end with the loss of $354 million. It can be fine-tuned which it should have been prior to three weeks before the deadline.

    NYers know bureaucracy and are familiar with MTA misapplication of funds. Its a fact of life here in the city. Again, that secondary question to the poll was asked because the pollsters had history as a lens to evaluate this issue. Thankfully they did that and they were fair in their polling.

  • $354 might be paltry to Jan and others that pretend to conceptually support congestion pricing while opposing “this incarnation,” but it’s enough to have gotten congestion pricing this far. Without the federal grant, c.p. would be just another good policy that New York pols can’t be bothered to pursue, or even become aware of. As Mark points out the plan has been through more than one incarnation, and a few too many mutations, all in the name of pleasing people that supposedly like congestion pricing in the abstract. And yet, the same people continue to have “questions” and quibbles that they claim (not usually so directly!) are worth tossing $354 million into the fire for. It’s bullshit. If you oppose this/every bill, you have no credibility as a supporter of congestion pricing and may as well admit you don’t like the idea of paying to drive.

    Also, acting tip for Jan: dissing the London scheme and implying that c.p. in general is bad for business kind of undermines the open-to-c.p. persona you’ve spend all of five seconds slapping together. Pricing certainly will have an “impact” on business, no one doubts that. That’s why the Partnership for New York City strongly supports it (the concept and—surprise—all the “incarnations” that have been birthed) and Crain’s New York has regularly run positive pieces on pricing even before it became politically possible with the grant.

    Likewise (wow, you type fast!) dissing the MTA raises the question of when, and how, you would ever want to fund transit. We have to fund the transit authority that we have, not the perfectly efficient of your dreams. Mass transit requires a bureaucracy, like it or not, and behind every transit system in the world you will find one that is sadly less than perfect. You will also find city dwellers that grumble about this fact, everywhere, but in cities and countries where they have established revenue streams to fund their (horrible, bureaucratic, bloated) transit systems more than we do (as % of economy), they have better, cleaner, more timely transit. As I am interested in that result, I won’t let myself be distracted by cynicism about the labyrinth that additional funding necessarily passes through. Try it sometime!

  • JF

    How long have you lived in NY? Just wondering.

    Born and raised. Whoops! There goes that overgeneralization.

    Of course you can’t trust the MTA. But the DOT, the state DOT, the Thruway Authority – not so trustworthy either.

    The part that’s nonsense is not the fact that you can’t trust the MTA. It’s the use of that fact to support arguments against restoring any of the money cut by Pataki, Giuliani and Bloomberg – while at the same time supporting throwing money at these equally untrustworthy road-building agencies.

    That is lowest form of argument – name-calling. That is what kids do when they get frustrated.

    Since you’re a CP supporter, I’m looking forward to seeing you criticize Ruben Safir, George Spitz, Doug Willinger, Omari and all the other anti-CP people who come on here and call names.

  • Jan

    “How long have you lived in NY? Just wondering.

    Born and raised. Whoops! There goes that overgeneralization.”

    Sorry, but you have construed your argument improperly. What I did was imply that you might not be from NY. There is no generalization, thus no overgeneralization. It was an implication. Implications and generalizations are different for future reference. You seem to have refuted the implication however messily.

    I read this site almost everyday and I see that the pro-CPers (about 3, 4 or 5) regularly insult and attack anyone who questions CP with the regular use of the word “bullshit”. Once in a while I see insults hurled by anti-CPer’s (which might not even be the right name – rather people who don’t support CP or the way it is trying to be passed or the current structure). The vitriol is coming from the pro-CP side on this site. However, go to the Daily News and you will see the opposite where the regular joes are putting down CP on a regular basis with a lot of rants and insults.

  • JF

    Sorry if I mixed up those logic terms on you, Jan. You did fail to support your generalization about New Yorkers distrusting the MTA, but since I have no reason to disbelieve that idea, I’ll accept it. The fault in your argument was not an overgeneralization, but the implication that “real NYers” somehow distrust the MTA more than any other government agency.

    I read this site almost everyday and I see that the pro-CPers (about 3, 4 or 5) regularly insult and attack anyone who questions CP with the regular use of the word “bullshit”.

    You’ll note that the people who come on in a respectful way and don’t insult congestion pricing proponents tend not to get insulted or attacked in turn. Lew from Brooklyn, Spud Spudly, Dave and lots of other opponents and skeptics have posted with respect and courtesy and received respect and courtesy in turn.

  • Jan

    I agree with you that there are respectful discussions on here through which I have learned a lot regarding the actual funding of the MTA’s capital budget and I appreciate that. I don’t agree that posts that raise questions regarding CP go unattacked. Maybe by some but not by others. Sure the names that you cited might be rational but there are a couple of others that become seemingly apoplectic at the mere questioning of CP.

    And by the way, most NYers distrust the MTA more than most local government agencies. That is why that question was asked by pollsters, because of prevailing history where the MTA is concerned. Although nowadays the DOB is giving the MTA a run for its money in the distrust department.

    Look at this year alone with the MTA – one fare hike, now discussion of another, 2nd ave line being suspended when two, three years ago the MTA was gaga over it, no more 10th ave stop on the 7 line, no money prior to discussions of last year fare hike and then finding a surplus. The MTA comes out with different numbers every day and they are repeatedly finding a shortfall one day and a surplus the next. There are examples of duplication of people doing the same task within the MTA. I read about the MTA’s legal team and how they have an internal legal team as well as hiring white shoe law firms and how wasteful that is.

    In the future it may get better but historically it has been a wasteful place and not fiscally sound internally irrespective of lack of funding or not.

  • Niccolo Machiavelli

    I think this back and forth cuts into some very basic contradictions in the present position. Many of the supporters of congestion pricing bashed the MTA thoroughly and consistently when (God forbid) fares were raised. Now Jan remembers the bashing. He trusts his “local” politicians more than the MTA. No big surprise. The MTA covers more than just his local community where ever than might be. Thats what transportation does, it links different communities and there for must involve allocations of values and resources that are greater than any singular local community.

    Fares go up over time. Does Jan or anyone else think that they don’t or won’t when every other cost is going up. Historically the basic TA fare has followed the basic price of a slice of pizza. The average fare paid is around $1.40 after the increase (less than the COLA increase). Where can I get a slice for that anywhere in Brooklyn?

    When fares go up, as they eventually have to, it is customary for the politicians to demand and the MTA to agree that service will improve in a certain way. When the MTA grows to be more dependent on funding by real estate taxes (Mortgage Recording Tax) and that tax fall (no one has repealed the business cycle) MTA operations have to react accordingly.

    But supporters of mass transit have to deal with this very basic contradiction in the opposition to fare increases. Why commit more tax dollars, or toll dollars or congestion pricing dollars to such a fucked up system? Why run the trains and buses at all?

    The reality is that the MTA is a huge bargain, about 20% of the cost of driving. Yeah, you might want more service at your subway stop but who doesn’t? And how does anyone get more out of the system without someone putting more into it?

    If you want to abolish the MTA and start over, be my guest. Call Shelly and Joe. Let me know how it works out.

  • JF

    Good points, Nico. One difference is that the average person has an experience paying money directly to the MTA, which leads to an expectation that an increase in the money paid will lead to an increase in service. If that money instead goes to make up for a budget cut, or to pay off a bond, some people may feel disappointed or deceived.

    They don’t have that experience with the DOT. I think people used to pay parking tickets to the DOT, but now they pay them to the Department of Finance. Let’s say someone pays $1000 in city and state taxes for the year. How many of them know the number of those dollars that are going to the DOT – or whether that’s gone up or down from last year? So the DOT could be just as wasteful with the money, but people wouldn’t be aware of it because they don’t pay the money directly.

    The media don’t really help the situation any. When they were talking about raising the subway fares, I don’t remember much discussion of the budget cuts under Pataki, Giuliani or Bloomberg.

    Despite that, go to a community board meeting and you’ll hear lots of people ranting about the DOT. It’s pretty well-mistrusted even without that direct connection.

    The main point is that the current system of “let’s all pay so that a few people have free bridges to drive over” is so badly broken that it’s worth the risk of the MTA pissing it down the toilet.

  • God Loves God’s Love Bicycles

    “The AIDS ride that will change your world forever”

    Imagine: God’s Love announces that they will phase in bicycle delivery of meals to their homebound patients, with a seed planning grant from the 2008 Braking the Cycle Ride.

    Imagine: Taking a cue from the FreshDirect truck/foot model, dozens (hundreds?) of eager bike volunteers begin delivering hot meals more efficiently than their truck/van fleet ever could before. (There is a reason virtually every restaurant delivery service uses bicycles.)

    Imagine: GLWD saves tons of money on fuel and maintnance. Less spent on overhead means more can be spent on meals. GLWD goes organic!

    Imagine: Congestion Pricing is the best thing that ever happened to GLWD.

    Be the change, God’s Love!

    More on Braking the Cycle:

    Braking the Cycle AIDS Ride 2007
    (ashtma inhaler cameo at 1:45)

    * Benefits the HIV/AIDS services of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Community Center.
    * Three days, 275 miles
    * Spectacular route from Gettysburg to Manhattan
    * Friday, September 26 to Sunday, September 28, 2008
    * Fully-supported, clearly marked route, with abundant support vehicles and rest stops every 15 miles.
    * All riders must arrive in Gettysburg by 5:00 pm on Thursday, September 25
    * All meals, snacks and lodging included from Friday morning through Sunday afternoon.
    * Sleep in hotels, two people per room.
    * Limited to 140 riders.
    * $85 registration fee, $3,500 fundraising minimum.
    * Training and fundraising support anytime from your rider coach. Ask the coach a question.

  • Have you driven a Ford lately?

    …In addition, corporate days of service brought teams from 52 corporations, 2,000 individuals who gave more than 6,000 hours.

    Among them was Ford Motor Company, which sent two teams of 30 employees in the spring and the
    fall; Ford also generously contributed $59,000 to GLWD for capital improvements.

    ( From the 2006 Annual Report: http://www.godslovewedeliver.org/pdf_files/annual_report.pdf )

  • Fendergal

    Instead of abolishing the MTA, why not change it from an authority to an transparent entity in which the head is elected by the people whom it serves, instead of a state agency staffed by appointments from the governor.


Brodsky Presents Dems With a Choice: God’s Love or Al D’Amato

Richard Brodsky is using this letter to rally opposition to congestion pricing. To get a sense of the issues that congestion pricing advocates will have to address in the State Assembly, download this letter that Westchester Assemblyman Richard Brodsky circulated to his fellow Democrats yesterday. In it, Brodsky repeats the debunked claim that congestion pricing […]

“Not Getting Anywhere” at Bronx Pricing Forum

And we thought Bloomberg had a tough crowd… Filed by Megan Chuchmach: Parking at the Riverdale Temple in the Bronx was at a premium Thursday night, with cars lining Independence Avenue in front and packing the lot out back. Inside, the owners of those cars, for the most part, raised a stink about Mayor Bloomberg’s […]

Brodsky Killed Congestion Pricing But We Hurt His Feelings

State Assembly Member Richard Brodsky is displeased by the suggestion that his opposition to New York City’s congestion pricing plan had anything to do with the fact that he has accepted more money from parking industry interests than any other State Assembly Member and that his district houses the wealthiest Manhattan car commuters in New […]

Brodsky Attacks Critics of His Congestion Pricing Study

On the Brian Lehrer show this morning, Assembly Member Richard Brodsky brushed off reports of his parking industry campaign contributions and TA, RPA and Streetsblog’s substantive criticism of his congestion pricing study as a "personal attack." Here’s a transcript:  Brian Lehrer: Streetsblog, the website, reported yesterday that over the past five years you have accepted […]
Photo: Crain's New York

Bucking de Blasio, Speaker Candidates Support Congestion Pricing

Mayor de Blasio is pulling out all the stops to frame congestion pricing as a "regressive tax," even though low-income New Yorkers stand to gain enormously. Not a single contender for council speaker is on the same page as the mayor. In a debate hosted by Crain's this morning, they all signaled support for congestion pricing, with a few caveats.

Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission Opens for Business

Westchester Assembly member Richard Brodsky on Mayor Bloomberg’s congestion pricing proposal: "My problem is that I don’t understand what you’ve proposed." "This is going to be interesting," Straphangers Campaign Senior Staff Attorney Gene Russianoff said as he waited for the start of yesterday’s inaugural Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission meeting. "Usually with these things, the fix […]