But I'm concerned that once we get into a debate about what is reversible and temporary we enter a minefield. For instance, is a "temporary" stadium not subject to an EIS, as I think was recently argued? How reversible is a program where hundreds of millions of tax dollars have been spent, esp. federal dollars? Maybe not so much, eh?

But if we can uphold the principle of a mandatory EIS by studing the effect of a congesting pricing tiral, we can have our cake and eat it too. A program like congestion pricing that is easily reversible will not create a precedent that will allow, for example, landfilling advocates to say they only need to do the EIS after the land is already filled.

Environmental review laws are a bit like free speech, which applies even to those I disagree with, as annoying as that is. SEQRA should apply to projects I support as well as those I object to, and should be implemented even if inconvenient.

And if the city is trying to do an end-run around the process by conducting the review while a "trial" is going on, then we support it at our own peril, because we are weakening a useful, though imperfect, law.

The environmental review process has become a joke, a game that has nothing to do with its original intent. The right thing to do is to exempt CP from the process to avoid the possiblity that opponents will try to tie it up in court for ten years, then do a real environmental review of the pilot project.

That's why the commission's proposal is better than Bloomberg's original -- it's cheaper, quicker and easier. If it works, it could always be expanded to other areas later.

Bloomberg's version, at least, specifically stated that it was a trial and that adjustments could be made as necessary. Obviously an environmental disaster, unlikely as it would be, would be a factor that would warrant changes in the trial.

He's mistaken in using the word "repeal," but isn't a decision to bypass a state law and then do a review after the fact (if that is what is really proposed) something like a "repeal"? It certainly sounds like an attempt do an end run around the law, doesn't it?

A) As Aaron points out, many of us pay for access to public space in Manhattan by our subway/bus/train fares every day.

B) CP is only charging you for access to that public space IF YOU INSIST ON DRIVING THERE.

I know I'm mainly preaching to the choir here, but it's just... bah. Like I said, infuriating.

The public doesn't respond to statistics and facts. It responds to stories.

Brodsky has a compelling narrative about "charging for access to public space," even if the facts don't quite add up. CP supporters need to tell our story better. Not facts, but stories. Something like: "CP charges the wealthy to make NYC better for everyone else."

Ideally, in my view, it would go through that review, though I do support this plan. If opponents sue on this question, they may successfully delay the plan.

It's true that the better-funded the "Friends of XYZ Park" is, the better maintained XYZ park is, and the less likely it is to have golf courses and highways in it. And that's a shame, because all New Yorkers deserve clean, safe, relaxing, well-maintained parks, regardless of how much they contribute to "Friends of XYZ Park," or whether they can afford a set of golf clubs.

Deborah WTF are you doing? I used to be such a fan

Suburbanites like Brodsky think the city is different because they think of the city as a toilet that is impervious to all forms of pollution. In fact, the city is full of sensitive things--people, children, architecture, and even a few trees. There's nothing wrong or unprecedented with levying a charge to discourage overuse/abuse of the urban environment, and to pay to alleviate some of the human toll by investing in mass transit.

If there was enough traffic riding by Brodsky's house that it it turned black every decade and had to be steam-cleaned at considerable expense (raising questions about the effect upon the occupants' lungs), maybe he would get it.