Comments on: Assemblyman Hevesi Clarifies Transit “Money Grab” Comment

By: rhubarbpie

rhubarbpie — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 17:45:54 +0000

While SEQRA is imperfect, I can’t see how picking and choosing when to abide by the law is a good idea, esp. when one argument is that we’ll lose federal dollars. How quickly we yield to temptation!

By: Doc Barnett

Doc Barnett — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 05:31:40 +0000

That "environmental" legislation is so toxic it has metastasized: SEQRCEQR. I refuse to learn this abbreviation, but I'm glad to hear that the success rate of abusing it to block serious environmental reform is not good.

By: Niccolo Machiavelli

Niccolo Machiavelli — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 03:21:34 +0000

I think thats State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) Doc. Expect someone to utilize it if and when CP passes, it will be another entire political campaign. I can read the headlines now. However, SEQRA suits have a very poor record of success in stalling policies in similar circumstances.

By: Doc Barnett

Doc Barnett — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 01:44:42 +0000

Hevesi’s attempt to swift boat congestion pricing, a program to reduce driving, with an Environmental Impact Study only succeeds in making him look bad. His tactics are as plainly obstructive as pricing is environmentally positive.

I see that his people have forgotten an argument against the “need,” for an EIS. I’ll lend them a hand:

4) A study in compliance SEQRA (whatever that is) could not be completed in time to attain the funding approved by the federal government for a program to reduce congestion.

That’s a pretty important one! Not only are we supposed to believe that charging people to drive could somehow cause devastating pollution somewhere, we’re supposed to accept that it’s worth losing a few hundred million dollars in federal funding to try to predict that before the pilot program instead of evaluating actual results when it starts. A program that could easily be stopped, if his impossible case scenario took place. I hate to reveal my “political naïveté” to Weiner & Co., but I think New Yorkers are smart enough to see through this cheap environmental hypocrisy.

By: rhubarbpie

rhubarbpie — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 01:15:54 +0000

We’ve had the EIS debate elsewhere, and I believe the assembly member has a point. And skipping the EIS at this point is a good way to provoke a lawsuit, not to prevent one.

I also think that Heffron is also right — many opponents are just going to come up with a reason to oppose congestion pricing, whether it’s legit or not.

However, the absolute silliest part of Hevesi’s op-ed is his assertion that congestion is a “Manhattan” problem. It’s not like he represents Iowa or a precinct in India — his constituents work in Manhattan, ride the subways to Manhattan, go to school in Manhattan, etc. And Queens is still in New York City, isn’t it?

And even those of his constituents who never enter Manhattan are breathing the same air polluted by vehicles driving in Manhattan, no?

I’m surprised that Mr. Hevesi would advance this, though I know it’s popular among some non-Manhattan politicians. It’s just not very thoughtful, shall we say?

By: Niccolo Machiavelli

Niccolo Machiavelli — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 00:23:28 +0000

Maybe Mr. Hevesi and his colleagues may have to decide, legislative pay raise + MTA capital plan + congestion pricing or none of the above.

By: Adam K

Adam K — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 22:58:52 +0000

Mike – exactly – that’s the problem with EIS’s and why they’re a joke. They are implicitly biased against positive changes because A) they assume the status quo is neutral, and B) are only consider the negative effects of projects, not the positive ones that might outweigh the negative.

By: mike

mike — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 21:16:45 +0000

Maybe someone should do and EIS on the current situation for driving around Manhattan. Think they’d roll it all back and change course after they found out all the issues with lots of people driving in a small space that has the potential (and the potential to make the $$) to be one of the most progressive, walkable, rideable, and transitable cities on the planet?

By: Larry Littlefield

Larry Littlefield — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 20:31:44 +0000

“a full Environmental Impact Study (EIS) be conducted in compliance with New York State’s Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA).”

Followed by a full repeat of the review process, followed by a seven year lawsuit.

I’ll say it again — the EIS process is a joke, and Hevesi is full of it.

By: Temp

Temp — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 20:06:58 +0000

Why is an EIS warranted? Do they have the slightest real-world predictive value?

By: Heffron

Heffron — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 19:38:39 +0000

I’m pretty sure this was also his testimony at the public hearing.

An EIS is certainly good and warranted, but is it really just b/c the Assemblyman is that concerned about having an EIS or this is the easiest thing for him to latch onto to be anti-cp? If an EIS study was done wouldn’t he simply say, “Oh well now I’m against it b/c insert excuse here?”