News Nicole Malliotakis, GOP mayoral candidate, says NYC’s reserves could help subway system

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Raise money from all the damn development we've been doin off the backs of the subway system. This isn't 'funding', this is robbing Peter to pay Paul. Do you raid your 401k to pay for your meals? Because this is the same type of foolishness.

 

The last time we had a recession, we had the service cuts which we are still not recovered from. Tapping City reserves now would magnify that effect when this bubble pops, but spread it around to the schools, the police, the fire department, and all those other services we use.

 

Poor people cannot afford to live in the areas that would have cheaper zoned fares. That's why we built the damn subway, to spread everyone out instead of crowding in the slums like it's 'Gangs of New York' all over again. 

 

People like to say that 'if you can't afford New York, you shouldn't live here' or some bull like that, but the poor people who work at McDonalds or at your deli or sweep the office floors have to live somewhere within a reasonable commutable distance, unless we want to start pushing 3-hour horror story commutes here like the Bay Area.

I'm sorry but no one is "entitled" to live anywhere with a reasonable commute.  I don't know where people get this nonsense from.  The area I live in has a median household income over 115k a year, and I have a "decent" commute, so if I'm not sure what sort of commute you think people with less means should have? 

[P3F]

I'm sorry but no one is "entitled" to live anywhere with a reasonable commute.  I don't know where people get this nonsense from.  The area I live in has a median household income over 115k a year, and I have a "decent" commute, so if I'm not sure what sort of commute you think people with less means should have? 

According to https://project.wnyc.org/median-income-nabes/ there are areas where the median income is in the $40k-50k range, which have commutes to Midtown of 25-35 minutes.

[RailRunRob]

I'm sorry but no one is "entitled" to live anywhere with a reasonable commute.  I don't know where people get this nonsense from.  The area I live in has a median household income over 115k a year, and I have a "decent" commute, so if I'm not sure what sort of commute you think people with less means should have? 

Where people get this nonsense?? Ummm maybe the past you know umm history. The City and Subways was expanded with this notion in mind @Bob's point. Why do we always find ourselves in this spot? You talking about yourself for the millionth time... and me asking what your validity is again? Sigh.. are these statements opinions? Can you just save us the time and state it as such.

[Interested Rider]

Let me add a couple of comments based on the 16 hours that a person  working  a table has observed. From 6 AM until 12 Noon there was the sum total of 20 voters, It was virtually dead until about 4 PM when it picked up a little bit and until 9 PM, a couple of voters came in and went. There were approximately 650 voters listed of which the final total was 53 voters for the entire 16 hour day or just slightly more than 8% of the registered voters voted that day. The reason that I bring this up is that you cannot force people to come out to vote and unless there is a firm commitment on the part of the person to vote,(which was observed in most of the voters that came out that day), you can cajole, do hand stands have a dance festival or any other gimmick, if a person does not want to come out to vote in a primary, nothing will move them to do it. All these proposals involving same day registration, early voting and every other idea that emanates from those that never worked the polls are totally useless as if a person does not want to vote it will not work even if they were dragged to the polls, kicking and screaming.   2012 there was a primary for state offices and the total was 40 voters in the entire 16 hour period. Yet in a primary election in September 2012 the voters came out in droves and the polls had to stay open past 9 PM to accommodate the voters that were on line. Each and every primary is different and it depends on the level of interest. In this one, it is my opinion that the incumbent mayor would be the nominee of the Democratic Party and therefore there was no reason to come out and cast a ballot. Of the four groups that come out to vote, new citizens, seniors, Martin Luther King generation and those with a family tradition of voting, only the Martin Luther King generation (most of whom are seniors anyway) came out in better numbers as compared with the rest of the groups.

In terms of the general election of the three candidates running against the mayor, I have to discount the chances of two of them right away as one does not have the complete support of her party and the other one has tried to run on two different lines and has been rejected. That leaves the third candidate who despite his liberal views may be looked upon favorably by the voting  public and may be the one that has the potential to mobilize support to win the election especially if the support for the mayor starts dropping for one reason or another before election day.. It is quite possible that with the constitutional convention on the ballot (I cannot emphasize how much this issue will determine the turnout) there will be a very large turnout of voters and this could possibly work against the incumbent mayor.  As  I said in previous posts, there are approximately six weeks to Election Day and a lot could happen in that time. The only thing  i ask is that everyone who is registered to vote make a commitment to come out and vote on Election Day 2017.

[RR503]

I'm sorry but no one is "entitled" to live anywhere with a reasonable commute.  I don't know where people get this nonsense from.  The area I live in has a median household income over 115k a year, and I have a "decent" commute, so if I'm not sure what sort of commute you think people with less means should have?

 

In the words of you, "oh please." You are ~1/8,000,000th of NYCs population. Your experiences do not translate onto the whole.

 

I know you're very into all the makers and takers stuff, but the truth is that Bob is right. Everyone is entitled to live near their place of work, regardless of whether they're making hamburgers or millions. I agree that the poor are not more entitled to good commutes than the rich, but that's where I stop. You can't have a functioning economy without holistic job accessibility -- which means equal temporal access -- because everything is interdependent.

 

So, to answer your question, I think people with less means than you should be able to live the same distance from their jobs as you, regardless of the cost.

[BreeddekalbL]

Plus freaking make deblasio's developer oligarch overlords pay for most of the sibway projects

[Interested Rider]

Errol Louis' column in today's New York Daily News provides some interesting reading as to how projects get built in New York City and the huge cost overruns. While he references the Republican candidate for mayor as to the fiscal problems that the city faces, it provides a good read as what he states in his column is what is being written by many of the forum members on this and other threads. This indicates that there are a lot of people that see the city's fiscal situation the same way that a lot of us do and are worried about what will happen further down the line.I, for one, would like to see the incumbent mayor's feet held to the fire with his drunken sailor spending habits that will result in a repeat of 1975. 

 

His comments as to voting I have to disagree with as if a voter is determined to vote then he/she will  make sure that they will cast their ballot in the election.

[Around the Horn]

Plus freaking make deblasio's developer oligarch overlords pay for most of the sibway projects

Yes, please lol

[Interested Rider]

If the mayor would have been indicted earlier this year for playing this game, he would not be so cocky in doing what he is doing. He is playing a very dangerous game as he knows that nothing will happen to him and the voters don't really care as if they did, they would not vote for him. He will always find an excuse to cast off responsibility and blame others and he will do it with the blessing of his fellow comrades and the courts. 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Where people get this nonsense?? Ummm maybe the past you know umm history. The City and Subways was expanded with this notion in mind @Bob's point. Why do we always find ourselves in this spot? You talking about yourself for the millionth time... and me asking what your validity is again? Sigh.. are these statements opinions? Can you just save us the time and state it as such.

No one is forcing you to respond.  If you disagree with my opinions then simply ignore them. That's it.  I'm entitled to voice my views and just because you disagree with them doesn't make your point of view any better so either deal with it or get over it already.

 

In the words of you, "oh please." You are ~1/8,000,000th of NYCs population. Your experiences do not translate onto the whole.

 

I know you're very into all the makers and takers stuff, but the truth is that Bob is right. Everyone is entitled to live near their place of work, regardless of whether they're making hamburgers or millions. I agree that the poor are not more entitled to good commutes than the rich, but that's where I stop. You can't have a functioning economy without holistic job accessibility -- which means equal temporal access -- because everything is interdependent.

 

So, to answer your question, I think people with less means than you should be able to live the same distance from their jobs as you, regardless of the cost.

Ultimately it doesn't matter what either of us think because the market will dictate where people can live and those with less will live much further out because that's where cheaper land is.  It's that simple.  Someone living in East New York may feel as if they're "entitled" to a shorter commute but so does the person living in Flushing and elsewhere.  Ultimately it comes down to what one can afford or is willing to pay.  

[bobtehpanda]

I'm sorry but no one is "entitled" to live anywhere with a reasonable commute.  I don't know where people get this nonsense from.  The area I live in has a median household income over 115k a year, and I have a "decent" commute, so if I'm not sure what sort of commute you think people with less means should have? 

 

Well, if you want service workers in the shops that you buy things in, in the restaurants you go to, or in the offices as security guards or janitors or what have you, they have to live somewhere. If their commute eats up 20% of their pre-tax income they just won't come here, the same way that no one from like Huntington or Scranton or Trenton or New Haven is commuting all the way to New York to flip burgers.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

According to https://project.wnyc.org/median-income-nabes/ there are areas where the median income is in the $40k-50k range, which have commutes to Midtown of 25-35 minutes.

That would make sense.  It will always vary depending on a number of circumstances but no one is entitled to anything. You're entitled to what you can afford.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Well, if you want service workers in the shops that you buy things in, in the restaurants you go to, or in the offices as security guards or janitors or what have you, they have to live somewhere. If their commute eats up 20% of their pre-tax income they just won't come here, the same way that no one from like Huntington or Scranton or Trenton or New Haven is commuting all the way to New York to flip burgers.

Yes, but you get what I'm saying unlike other people who are too busy trying to "school me" about being grateful and all of this BS. Nobody cares about that.  What we're talking about here is what the market dictates, and if you're making 20k a year, you can feel as entitled as you want to live wherever you want, but you'll live where you can afford to live and that's that.  If I'm missing something, you let me know, but that's how things work, so yes ultimately, that person that flips burgers will have to look elsewhere if the commute becomes too costly.  That still has no bearing on how entitled someone "feels" they should be able to live. That's a question of what we think is moral.  Yes it would be great if everyone could have a commute of 30 minutes to work.  Why not?

[RailRunRob]

No one is forcing you to respond. If you disagree with my opinions then simply ignore them. That's it. I'm entitled to voice my views and just because you disagree with them doesn't make your point of view any better so either deal with it or get over it already.

 

Ultimately it doesn't matter what either of us think because the market will dictate where people can live and those with less will live much further out because that's where cheaper land is. It's that simple. Someone living in East New York may feel as if they're "entitled" to a shorter commute but so does the person living in Flushing and elsewhere. Ultimately it comes down to what one can afford or is willing to pay.

Funny doesn’t stop you from adding your two cents when you happen to disagree with something does it? My opinion is honestly you’re really over evaluating what you bring to the table. All talk ..what skill or knowledge do you actually have that can change anything? Why Should we be listening anything you say what’s the validity? When the MTA had open house on ideas two months ago not a peep while the rest of us actually accomplish something and tried to change something. All this talk want to do something run for the Community board or something! What’s the plan what’s the goal what’s the point what are you going to do to actually make this City better? Make sure when see something you want agree with that you keep your opinions to yourself as well. You need a real lesson in accountability.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Funny doesn’t stop you from adding your two cents when you happen to disagree with something does it? My opinion is honestly you’re really over evaluating what you bring to the table. All talk ..what skill or knowledge do you actually have that can change anything? Why Should we be listening anything you say what’s the validity? When the MTA had open house on ideas two months ago not a peep while the rest of us actually accomplish something and tried to change something. All this talk want to do something run for the Community board or something! What’s the plan what’s the goal what’s the point what are you going to do to actually make this City better? Make sure when see something you want agree with that you keep your opinions to yourself as well. You need a real lesson in accountability.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

Listen I've been to enough meetings and town hall meetings and have worked with politicians to get a number of services restored over the years, so I don't need your approval for anything. Brooklyn Bus and I have even been at a Town Hall meeting to improve transportation. You should focus on whatever it is you do and leave me be.

 

You disagree with my views and therefore think that somehow you're morally superior. Save your little talk for someone who gives a damn.

[RailRunRob]

Listen I've been to enough meetings and town hall meetings and have worked with politicians to get a number of services restored over the years, so I don't need your approval for anything. Brooklyn Bus and I have even been at a Town Hall meeting to improve transportation. You should focus on whatever it is you do and leave me be.

 

You disagree with my views and therefore think that somehow you're morally superior. Save your little talk for someone who gives a damn.

Applause: Claps. I am focusing on what I do actually improving something physical I won’t say too much but when you see the next round of Press releases and improvements coming to the MTA I hope I come to mind. When you ride Kawasaki NTTs trains id hope you you’d think of me as well spent many hours rendering and running simulations. Physical contributions but thank you for attending public townhalls maybe I’ll attend one day would love to hear you speak your opinions shall your words ring true and persuade MTA brass to see the errors of their ways.

 

This has nothing to do with superiority it has everything to do with being about to take in what you dish out. Your blunt and straight to the point so am I (shrugs). Are people not supposed to question your views and ask what you’ve done? Shouldn’t you have some credentials and accolades to back it up? It isn’t that complicated.

 

Respect to Brooklyn Bus nothing against you bud.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

[Trainmaster5]

I've been enjoying myself reading this thread especially the last few pages. Since everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion it's rather obvious that there will be sharp differences between posters. I happen to agree with a lot of Interested Rider's thoughts as well as RR503's ideas. What's been mentioned slightly is the bond markets and new construction around the city. I think that Interested Rider, BrooklynBus, and a few other posters are old enough to recall the past ups and downs of transit in this region. The bondholders will dictate the future of mass transit in the NYC area. Period. Those new luxury digs going up in LIC, Downtown Brooklyn, and the like are being financed by whom? This just looks like this generation's " Urban Renewal " projects with a financial focus rather than the racial element of the Sixties/Seventies plans. It's my opinion that before a single shovel was put in the ground for any of this construction the City of New York should have demanded a set-aside financial tax/fee dedicated to mass transit improvements. I think that it's absurd that someone who has moved into these new developments has the nerve to complain about overcrowded or trains up in Astoria. Those folks in the UES who are now complaining about crowded trains on the SAS what, exactly did you bring to the table? For years I've read about and been part of the overcrowded Lexington , , and trains in upper Manhattan as well as the overcrowded, unreliable bus service up there. The new line opens up and suddenly it's overcrowded and needs more service. Where, pray tell, did this new ridership come from? Are the Lex lines and the buses less crowded? I'm oversimplifying this to make a point. DeBlasio, or even Prince Andrew, aren't calling the shots here. The bondholders of the , the PA, and those who financed this new construction are the direct cause of many of the new transit problems in the city. Many are too young to remember that Robert Moses, hero or bad guy, was brought to his knees not by Nelson Rockefeller, the governor of NY, but by  David Rockefeller, the Chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank. The financiers, not the taxpayers, should be held accountable. They, the banks, hold the ultimate power.Those who applaud this wave of new construction without mass transit funding improvements will suffer just as much in the inevitable next financial collapse. My opinion. Carry on.

[bobtehpanda]

Yes, but you get what I'm saying unlike other people who are too busy trying to "school me" about being grateful and all of this BS. Nobody cares about that.  What we're talking about here is what the market dictates, and if you're making 20k a year, you can feel as entitled as you want to live wherever you want, but you'll live where you can afford to live and that's that.  If I'm missing something, you let me know, but that's how things work, so yes ultimately, that person that flips burgers will have to look elsewhere if the commute becomes too costly.  That still has no bearing on how entitled someone "feels" they should be able to live. That's a question of what we think is moral.  Yes it would be great if everyone could have a commute of 30 minutes to work.  Why not?

 

And you're putting too much of your own bias into it and reading what you want to read. Where have I ever advocated for a 30 minute commute to work?

 

Right now, some of the poorest people live in areas that, well, are hard to get to. A lot of middle class people do too, because that's what they can afford. But the other part of it is that they can afford to get to work because the fare is 2.75. A flat, low fare is better for those who are far out in the Rockaways, in South Jamaica, in Bensonhurst, in all of these working and middle class neighborhoods - your CEO or tech worker isn't slumming it on the N6. You bring up this $5 fare, and you will essentially price people out of their jobs, because how many people can afford a $5 fare and all those hikes on top of the exorbitant rent and the taxes?

[CenSin]

You would think that a Republican candidate would have fiscally-sound ideas and some financial smarts. Spending money down to nothing is a great way to make sure tough times are tougher at some indeterminate point in the future.

 

Of course, at that indeterminate point, Malliotakis will be long gone to pursue some other political ambition while the mayor would get blamed for the crisis.

[RailRunRob]

I've been enjoying myself reading this thread especially the last few pages. Since everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion it's rather obvious that there will be sharp differences between posters. I happen to agree with a lot of Interested Rider's thoughts as well as RR503's ideas. What's been mentioned slightly is the bond markets and new construction around the city. I think that Interested Rider, BrooklynBus, and a few other posters are old enough to recall the past ups and downs of transit in this region. The bondholders will dictate the future of mass transit in the NYC area. Period. Those new luxury digs going up in LIC, Downtown Brooklyn, and the like are being financed by whom? This just looks like this generation's " Urban Renewal " projects with a financial focus rather than the racial element of the Sixties/Seventies plans. It's my opinion that before a single shovel was put in the ground for any of this construction the City of New York should have demanded a set-aside financial tax/fee dedicated to mass transit improvements. I think that it's absurd that someone who has moved into these new developments has the nerve to complain about overcrowded or trains up in Astoria. Those folks in the UES who are now complaining about crowded trains on the SAS what, exactly did you bring to the table? For years I've read about and been part of the overcrowded Lexington , , and trains in upper Manhattan as well as the overcrowded, unreliable bus service up there. The new line opens up and suddenly it's overcrowded and needs more service. Where, pray tell, did this new ridership come from? Are the Lex lines and the buses less crowded? I'm oversimplifying this to make a point. DeBlasio, or even Prince Andrew, aren't calling the shots here. The bondholders of the , the PA, and those who financed this new construction are the direct cause of many of the new transit problems in the city. Many are too young to remember that Robert Moses, hero or bad guy, was brought to his knees not by Nelson Rockefeller, the governor of NY, but by  David Rockefeller, the Chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank. The financiers, not the taxpayers, should be held accountable. They, the banks, hold the ultimate power.Those who applaud this wave of new construction without mass transit funding improvements will suffer just as much in the inevitable next financial collapse. My opinion. Carry on.

Well said!!

[Via Garibaldi 8]

You would think that a Republican candidate would have fiscally-sound ideas and some financial smarts. Spending money down to nothing is a great way to make sure tough times are tougher at some indeterminate point in the future.

 

Of course, at that indeterminate point, Malliotakis will be long gone to pursue some other political ambition while the mayor would get blamed for the crisis.

Malliotakis has pointed out that this mayor has spent like crazy with very little to show for it.  The City has spent millions to remedy the homeless problem and yet it continues to grow.  We have mentally ill people all over the city attacking innocent commuters on subways and host of other issues plaguing our transportation system, but people like you don't talk about that though.  

 

What Malliotakis is saying is we need to put the money where it is needed and get the most return from it; in other words make investments accordingly.  Meeting the halfway seems like a no-brainer, even if that means taking some monies away for later given the chronic state of the system now.  We've seen how this city cannot function when the subway has been down, and how anyone can say otherwise is absurd.  De Blasio has just been throwing money at problems, but not solving them, and you yet you complain about waste.  The State has been making a number of investments in improving transportation around the city, and their span goes beyond the subways.  I've seen all of the projects that Cuomo has undertaken, and there is only so much money to go around.  Sure he could hike takes on those with more, but it's the high taxes that has forced so many out of the city and state to begin with, so at some point, who in the hell will there be left to tax if we keep hiking taxes?  That is not a fiscally sound way to get things done.  Unlike de Blasio, Cuomo gets the big picture.  

 

And you're putting too much of your own bias into it and reading what you want to read. Where have I ever advocated for a 30 minute commute to work?

 

Right now, some of the poorest people live in areas that, well, are hard to get to. A lot of middle class people do too, because that's what they can afford. But the other part of it is that they can afford to get to work because the fare is 2.75. A flat, low fare is better for those who are far out in the Rockaways, in South Jamaica, in Bensonhurst, in all of these working and middle class neighborhoods - your CEO or tech worker isn't slumming it on the N6. You bring up this $5 fare, and you will essentially price people out of their jobs, because how many people can afford a $5 fare and all those hikes on top of the exorbitant rent and the taxes?

Well I threw out a 30 minute commute because that's usually "ideal" for people who may not live in Manhattan.  I think you're also putting a lot of stock into how many people are actually paying that $2.75 versus those that aren't.  Furthermore, a lot of commutes are difficult across the city, even going Crosstown in Manhattan.  Try getting from the Upper West Side to the parts of East Midtown or the Upper East Side.  What's funny about your position is you don't want the fares increased and you don't think that the City should assist in trying to get this fiasco turned around and back on track.  That doesn't leave many options.  I look at it this way.  NYC loses money, productivity and many other things when our subways and buses don't run accordingly, as people sit in traffic or on trains instead of in their offices working, and while it may look pointless in the short term to inject monies into the , it's better than sitting back and doing nothing and letting the situation worsen, which is essentially what de Blasio is doing.  It's great that wants to talk "tough" and "stand up" to the , but that isn't alleviating the problem at all, and it never will.

 

This is where a mature mayor puts politics aside and does what the City needs. He doesn't have the power to "tax the rich" to create cash flow for the , and Cuomo has already said that such a tax is dead on arrival, so all he can is lobby and talk.  

[bobtehpanda]

Malliotakis has pointed out that this mayor has spent like crazy with very little to show for it.  The City has spent millions to remedy the homeless problem and yet it continues to grow.  We have mentally ill people all over the city attacking innocent commuters on subways and host of other issues plaguing our transportation system, but people like you don't talk about that though.  

 

What Malliotakis is saying is we need to put the money where it is needed and get the most return from it; in other words make investments accordingly.  Meeting the halfway seems like a no-brainer, even if that means taking some monies away for later given the chronic state of the system now.  We've seen how this city cannot function when the subway has been down, and how anyone can say otherwise is absurd.  De Blasio has just been throwing money at problems, but not solving them, and you yet you complain about waste.  The State has been making a number of investments in improving transportation around the city, and their span goes beyond the subways.  I've seen all of the projects that Cuomo has undertaken, and there is only so much money to go around.  Sure he could hike takes on those with more, but it's the high taxes that has forced so many out of the city and state to begin with, so at some point, who in the hell will there be left to tax if we keep hiking taxes?  That is not a fiscally sound way to get things done.  Unlike de Blasio, Cuomo gets the big picture.  

 

Well I threw out a 30 minute commute because that's usually "ideal" for people who may not live in Manhattan.  I think you're also putting a lot of stock into how many people are actually paying that $2.75 versus those that aren't.  Furthermore, a lot of commutes are difficult across the city, even going Crosstown in Manhattan.  Try getting from the Upper West Side to the parts of East Midtown or the Upper East Side.  What's funny about your position is you don't want the fares increased and you don't think that the City should assist in trying to get this fiasco turned around and back on track.  That doesn't leave many options.  I look at it this way.  NYC loses money, productivity and many other things when our subways and buses don't run accordingly, as people sit in traffic or on trains instead of in their offices working, and while it may look pointless in the short term to inject monies into the , it's better than sitting back and doing nothing and letting the situation worsen, which is essentially what de Blasio is doing.  It's great that wants to talk "tough" and "stand up" to the , but that isn't alleviating the problem at all, and it never will.

 

This is where a mature mayor puts politics aside and does what the City needs. He doesn't have the power to "tax the rich" to create cash flow for the , and Cuomo has already said that such a tax is dead on arrival, so all he can is lobby and talk.  

 

The City should assist by levying taxes on developers and their developments who directly benefit from the subway and buses, not raising fares. If you weren't too busy putting words into people's mouths, you'll notice that I've never said anything about other funding options, I just think that raiding the City's emergency funds is a terrible idea on principle. 

 

For the record, I think that taxing the rich is a dumb way to fund the subway, if only because rich people have nothing to do with the subway unless they're a property developer or some other type of real estate person.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

The City should assist by levying taxes on developers and their developments who directly benefit from the subway and buses, not raising fares. If you weren't too busy putting words into people's mouths, you'll notice that I've never said anything about other funding options, I just think that raiding the City's emergency funds is a terrible idea on principle. 

 

For the record, I think that taxing the rich is a dumb way to fund the subway, if only because rich people have nothing to do with the subway unless they're a property developer or some other type of real estate person.

And that's unlikely to happen with de Blasio in office because the City wants to play nice and get the developers to build "affordable housing" (another fraud from this administration), so as I said I don't see any other funding options, whether you say anything about them or not.  I don't know what this "raiding" is that you keep bringing up.  You're so outraged at the thought, but you're not outraged by the amount of overspending that this mayor has done.  If we're really talking about "raiding", there should be far more monies in the City coffers for emergencies than there currently is, especially when you look at how much money the City has been taking in.  There is so much money coming in that de Blasio can't spend it fast enough.

[MHV9218]

And that's unlikely to happen with de Blasio in office because the City wants to play nice and get the developers to build "affordable housing" (another fraud from this administration), so as I said I don't see any other funding options, whether you say anything about them or not.  I don't know what this "raiding" is that you keep bringing up.  You're so outraged at the thought, but you're not outraged by the amount of overspending that this mayor has done.  If we're really talking about "raiding", there should be far more monies in the City coffers for emergencies than there currently is, especially when you look at how much money the City has been taking in.  There is so much money coming in that de Blasio can't spend it fast enough.

 

You keep repeating this point. I've yet to see you reference a single substantive example of money spent that should have been spent to a lesser degree, or should not have spent at all. Dismissing "homelessness" as not worth spending money on to keep the problem from getting worse is not an answer. I'm beginning to question whether you have any idea about policy at all. If you're going to say these things, you need to point to specific examples. For example: the governor's office redirected around $450million of funds set aside for the MTA to its own state budget, because there were no rules against that. That is an example. Saying over and over that the mayor has been 'overspending,' when this is statistically one of the most economically conservative administrations in years (they've made the point that 'you patch the roof before the rain comes') belies your fundamental confusion of fiscal policy and generally ill-informed perspective. All of us grow stupider listening to these points made 10, 20, or 30 times in a row without a single specific example. This is yet another thread made useless by this practice.

[RailRunRob]

You keep repeating this point. I've yet to see you reference a single substantive example of money spent that should have been spent to a lesser degree, or should not have spent at all. Dismissing "homelessness" as not worth spending money on to keep the problem from getting worse is not an answer. I'm beginning to question whether you have any idea about policy at all. If you're going to say these things, you need to point to specific examples. For example: the governor's office redirected around $450million of funds set aside for the MTA to its own state budget, because there were no rules against that. That is an example. Saying over and over that the mayor has been 'overspending,' when this is statistically one of the most economically conservative administrations in years (they've made the point that 'you patch the roof before the rain comes') belies your fundamental confusion of fiscal policy and generally ill-informed perspective. All of us grow stupider listening to these points made 10, 20, or 30 times in a row without a single specific example. This is yet another thread made useless by this practice.

Nothing is ever quantifiable from that side that’s kinda what trips me out! Can we at least get a IMO?

Civil rules of engagement.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app