A Historic Vote, With Historic Consequences by Lewis Fidler
April 14th, 2008
In the wake of the Council’s historic vote on congestion pricing, I heard Mayor Mike Bloomberg proclaim that the vote proved that “New Yorkers are overwhelmingly in support of congestion pricing.” And he said that with a straight face!
The die has been cast. But there are a few things that need to be said about the Council vote—which was in fact historic.
Of course, the history being made is a matter of perspective. Like our Democratic presidential race, where history will be made—will it be the first woman or African-American to ascend to our party’s nomination?—the historic nature of the Council vote is a matter of what one sees. Pro or con, the passage of congestion pricing would be a tidal change in the city. On the other hand, in the history of the City Council, no measure brought to the floor by the speaker or majority leader with their support—no less the added support of the mayor—has ever had as many as 20 ‘no’ votes cast.
That last fact flies in the face of the mayor’s statement. Add to that the fact that members were induced—as is their right—to vote in favor of the plan with extra-curricular benefits, and it would hardly be a resounding statement that New Yorkers support the measure on the merits.
Let me be clear. Members are entitled to decide that the package on the table benefits their district more than the proposal hurts it. That’s politics. Things like this have happened since the Continental Congress, and I am not above it. But that surely clouds the message that the mayor was sending. It passed. The state was authorized. But that’s it.
Two other important points: The Council ceded all authority to make this decision to the State. We did not pass a specific plan, but rather authorized the state to act. This abdication of a full role was, in my view, an institutional error, regardless of the side you take.
Second, when I said the mayor plays by a set of rules that he condemns for others, his spokesman called me a “sore loser.” Well, actually, in the face of the historic ‘no’ vote, I don’t really think our side lost. But more importantly, this answer sidestepped the facts.
This billionaire mayor has been critical of “pay-for-play” in our city. In many respects, he has been right. But his deeds do not mirror his words. Look at the facts: He “bought” the Republican majority in the State Senate with a $500,000 campaign contribution. He offered at least one Council member a fund raiser over dinner and cocktails at Gracie Mansion. His closest friends, including his accountant, funded the pro-congestion pricing PACs with maximum contributions—the latter being the very definition of “soft money.”
Freedom of speech applies to everyone, not just mayors. And pay-for-play rules apply to billionaires equally. Pretending otherwise is not only hypocritical, but in my neighborhood, we’d say it was CHutzpah, with a capital ‘CH.’
Mike Bloomberg has been a good Mayor, by and large. But the occasional inability to see things from the perspective of non-wealthy New Yorkers sometimes leaks out.
The day after he first proposed the $8 fee, reacting to complaints, the New York Post quoted him as saying “Oh, get over it. You pay $12 to get into a movie.” Mr. Mayor, I have constituents who don’t go to the movies because they’re $12 bucks. Why not just offer to “let them eat cake?”
The die has been cast. But there are a few things that need to be said about the Council vote—which was in fact historic.
Of course, the history being made is a matter of perspective. Like our Democratic presidential race, where history will be made—will it be the first woman or African-American to ascend to our party’s nomination?—the historic nature of the Council vote is a matter of what one sees. Pro or con, the passage of congestion pricing would be a tidal change in the city. On the other hand, in the history of the City Council, no measure brought to the floor by the speaker or majority leader with their support—no less the added support of the mayor—has ever had as many as 20 ‘no’ votes cast.
That last fact flies in the face of the mayor’s statement. Add to that the fact that members were induced—as is their right—to vote in favor of the plan with extra-curricular benefits, and it would hardly be a resounding statement that New Yorkers support the measure on the merits.
Let me be clear. Members are entitled to decide that the package on the table benefits their district more than the proposal hurts it. That’s politics. Things like this have happened since the Continental Congress, and I am not above it. But that surely clouds the message that the mayor was sending. It passed. The state was authorized. But that’s it.
Two other important points: The Council ceded all authority to make this decision to the State. We did not pass a specific plan, but rather authorized the state to act. This abdication of a full role was, in my view, an institutional error, regardless of the side you take.
Second, when I said the mayor plays by a set of rules that he condemns for others, his spokesman called me a “sore loser.” Well, actually, in the face of the historic ‘no’ vote, I don’t really think our side lost. But more importantly, this answer sidestepped the facts.
This billionaire mayor has been critical of “pay-for-play” in our city. In many respects, he has been right. But his deeds do not mirror his words. Look at the facts: He “bought” the Republican majority in the State Senate with a $500,000 campaign contribution. He offered at least one Council member a fund raiser over dinner and cocktails at Gracie Mansion. His closest friends, including his accountant, funded the pro-congestion pricing PACs with maximum contributions—the latter being the very definition of “soft money.”
Freedom of speech applies to everyone, not just mayors. And pay-for-play rules apply to billionaires equally. Pretending otherwise is not only hypocritical, but in my neighborhood, we’d say it was CHutzpah, with a capital ‘CH.’
Mike Bloomberg has been a good Mayor, by and large. But the occasional inability to see things from the perspective of non-wealthy New Yorkers sometimes leaks out.
The day after he first proposed the $8 fee, reacting to complaints, the New York Post quoted him as saying “Oh, get over it. You pay $12 to get into a movie.” Mr. Mayor, I have constituents who don’t go to the movies because they’re $12 bucks. Why not just offer to “let them eat cake?”
