John Liu and David Yassky might be headed for a run-off in the comptroller race.

If you're a little unclear about what these positions do, here's the short version: The comptroller is the city's financial watchdog, and the public advocate is the watchdog for everything else, evaluating the effectiveness of city policies and sometimes serving as a check against mayoral power. Whoever holds these positions will wield important oversight powers for the next four years, and we'll probably see one or both of the winners make a run for mayor at some point.

In the right hands, both offices can advance the cause of livable streets. We'll review the comptroller race first and then take a look at the public advocate contenders later today.

The comptroller can't cast a vote in Albany for a transit funding package, but he or she can certainly help frame the debate. Democratic mayoral contender Bill Thompson could have used his comptroller's pulpit to reinforce the Ravitch Commission bridge toll plan this year. Instead he opted to push for vehicle registration fees as an alternative to road pricing, giving the State Senate additional cover for its watered down transit funding package.

The race to succeed Thompson, which will effectively be decided in the Democratic primary, pits four City Council members against each other: David Yassky of Brooklyn, and John Liu, Melinda Katz, and David Weprin of Queens. Neither Katz nor Weprin cleared the most elementary livable streets hurdle during their council tenures, with each siding against congestion pricing in last year's vote. So let's review the intriguing Yassky-Liu rivalry.

Liu's inconsistencies have been well-documented here on Streetsblog. His "yes" vote on congestion pricing in 2008 somehow morphed into vocal opposition to bridge tolls this year. He lectured on pedestrian safety from his post as transportation committee chair, but when DOT actually improved safety with its Midtown reclamation projects, he scolded the city for "expropriating" street space. And when the Bicycle Access Bill came before the City Council, Liu looked ready to scuttle the historic legislation until the last minute. As a comptroller candidate, he has turned to standard-issue MTA bashing as a staple of his campaign.

In addition to sponsoring the Bike Access Bill and shepherding it through the council, Yassky has consistently supported a car-free Prospect Park and helped secure funding for the Bedford Avenue bike parking swap. An early supporter of congestion pricing, Yassky has not made transit funding a signature campaign issue. But in his response to the TA candidate survey, he gives some promising indications that he will use the comptroller's office to highlight the necessity of funding transit with road pricing.

Pledging to "set up in-depth assessments of the economic impact congestion has" and to "advocate and support policies like congestion pricing," Yassky says his office will "provide a solid platform from which to advocate change." A comptroller who follows through on those promises would be a valuable ally in the fight for sustainable transportation policy in the New York region.

Councilmen Weprin, Felder, and Gentile protest the injustice of enforcing the law. Photo: Daily Politics

A new bill has surfaced that would tack on a five-minute "grace period" to time restrictions on parking spots. It would codify the contention of a certain class of New Yorkers who believe the law doesn't really apply to drivers.

The anti-enforcement contingent behind the bill includes Vincent Gentile and Simcha Felder of Brooklyn, David Weprin of Queens, and James Vacca of the Bronx. Who are the people these elected representatives are sticking up for? The Daily News, in a story that openly cheers for the new bill to take effect, tells us about one driver who would love some extra time to drop off her pet for a doggie manicure:

Meryl Blackman, 57, a Realtor in Brooklyn Heights, says she needs even more time to unload her dog. She admits leaving her SUV in no-parking zones to deal with the pooch.

"A five-minute grace period is great, but we need more time," she said. "Ten to 15 would be fabulous. It would make the quality of life so much better."

Give 'em five minutes, they'll take an hour. I can already hear the whining about getting a ticket just after the "grace period" expires.

According to the Times, Council Speaker Christine Quinn has not taken a position on the bill, nor has transportation committee chair John Liu, whose support for other bills that let drivers off the hook has apparently given the lax enforcement movement some momentum.

Parking violators have something of a champion in Gentile, who wants to see enforcement relaxed all over his borough:

"We're under siege," he said. "It's high time for this mayor, who wants to get reelected, to ... step in and say cut it out, enforce the law in a reasonable manner."

Gentile may be getting a few calls from constituents (like the fellow who demands the untrammeled right to block the sidewalk because he has a curb-cutting driveway), but his so-called "slew" of ticketing is a mirage. Another story in today's Daily News reveals that parking tickets declined city-wide by a full 11.5 percent last year.

I don't usually get into New Year's resolutions, but there's one I'm considering for 2009. Every time I see someone double-park, overstay the allotted time at a meter, run a red light, pull an illegal U-turn, or speed like a maniac down the street where I live -- and not get a ticket -- I'm going to call my Council member.

UPDATE: Intro 637 has been tabled. There will be no council vote today.

As of this writing, the City Council is scheduled to vote today to codify a Department of Finance program that makes it cheaper -- and in some cases free -- for commercial trucks to park illegally.

The DOF Stipulated Fine Program, started in 2004, includes a secret fine schedule for participants which eliminates fines for many parking violations, including double parking and parking at expired meters. (In other words, truckers in the program can park forever at an expired meter.) It also reduces fines for dangerous parking activity like blocking a fire hydrant, parking in a traffic lane, parking on the sidewalk, blocking a crosswalk, and parking in a bike lane.

In return, businesses in the program agree not to contest fines for these and other violations, thereby maximizing revenues for the city while encouraging illegal parking.

Intro 637, introduced by David Yassky, David Weprin and Simcha Felder, would convert the controversial Department of Finance program, which was begun in 2004, from a regulation into a permanent city law.

City sources say the Stipulated Fine Program is unpopular with NYPD and DOT, as it undermines enforcement and street management efforts and contradicts the city's sustainability goal of using sound parking policy to reduce traffic and air pollution. The timing of the bill -- which appears to be at DOF's behest -- is especially odd, given that such efforts are already hampered by the defeat of congestion pricing, and since DOT and NYPD are beginning to work together on traffic policy. Instead of improving truck access to curbs by encouraging DOT to raise meter rates during peak periods and meter free parking spaces, the City Council appears ready to lock in the dysfunction that currently reins at street level.

UPDATE: Here is a PDF of Intro 637 along with the Stipulated Fine Program violation fee schedule (pages 6-9). On the schedule, the "COMM-ABATT" columns list fines prescribed by the Commercial Abatement Program, which is available to companies that are ineligible for deeper Stipulated Fine discounts. (Column A represents areas outside Midtown; column B is Midtown.) On pages 4 and 5 is a FOIL request submitted to the Department of Finance by Transportation Alternatives, which was necessary to obtain the fee schedule.

Here is City Council testimony by DOF Commissioner Martha E. Stark from February and April.

Photo: kerfuffle & zeitgeist/Flickr

After the jump, Azi gets a response from Michael O'Loughlin of the Campaign for New York's Future.

Azi has another video in which Weprin explains that the City Council actually doesn't support pricing, despite last week's 30-20 vote.

If Tony Avella and David Weprin and other Queens City Council members succeed in killing congestion pricing, at least Queens residents who lose out on transit improvements could take comfort in knowing that their representatives will have escaped the wrath of the Queens Civic Congress. Check out this (unedited) warning from the QCC [PDF]:

Queens Civic Congress puts all elected officials and would be ones on notice that the communities are closely following what people say and how they will vote. The Civic community expect the City Council to vote a strong thums down to the congestion tax." stated Jim Trent, Transportation Chair for the Queens Civic Congress, a the borough-wide coalition of civic and condo, cooperative, tenant and other community organizations. "Anyone who supports the unfair tax and/ or votes for it stands to lose any chance of being 'awarded" the coveted five unispheres rating; it could costs them as they look ahead to the next election.

Photo: K. B./Flickr

We've received several reports that Friday's anti-pricing rally on the Queens side of the 59th Street Bridge, spearheaded by City Council Member Tony Avella, was a bust.

According to our sources, of the council members slated to attend -- Avella, Leroy Comrie, Melinda Katz, David Weprin "and other possible members of the Queens Delegation" -- only Avella and Weprin showed up. Pro-pricing folks who came to either counter-protest or just express support for pricing, including those from Queens, were reportedly yelled at and accused of being "undemocratic" by Avella. Environmental Defense was on hand to measure air quality and found that "contaminants were sky high."

Notably absent from the proceedings was Councilman Eric Gioia, who represents the district where the rally took place. Here are a few possible reasons why, as enumerated in testimony to council members by DOT Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan.

• Without congestion pricing, western Queens will not see a 39% reduction in its most severe traffic jams, and a 6.1% reduction in total traffic.
  
• Without congestion pricing, western Queens will not receive new bus routes from Middle Village to South Ferry in Lower Manhattan, and from Jackson Heights to Penn Station.
  
• Without congestion pricing, western Queens will not get improved service on the Q60 bus route.
  
• Without congestion pricing, western Queens will lose 46 new subway cars that would increase service frequency on the E and F trains.
  
• Without congestion pricing, western Queens may lose state-of-the-art train control on the #7 line, that would allow trains to operate at higher speeds and run closer together, for better, more frequent service.
  

This is what Avella, Weprin and other hard-working council members are trying to take away from Gioia's constituents today. Will Gioia himself be among them?

Tony Avella

Notably, Eric Gioia (right), who represents the traffic-burdened district where the rally will be taking place, is not listed as a participant. Perhaps he realizes that standing in front of a backdrop of rush hour traffic, yelling, "We need to keep this as is!" isn't going to play all that well with his constituents.

But who knows. Maybe he'll show up. Despite the clear benefit to his district (only 3.2% of his constituents regularly commute by car into the pricing zone), Gioia has yet to come out in support of congestion pricing. You can be sure that the car commuting Council members to his east are happy about that. For them, Gioia's district is little more than a highway on-ramp that helps them avoid the toll at the Queens-Midtown Tunnel.

Congestion pricing's first test in the City Council will be a vote this month by the State and Federal Legislation Committee, chaired by Maria Baez, D-Bronx. Speaker Christine Quinn, a pricing supporter, gave the measure a boost by assigning it to Baez's panel instead of the Finance Committee, chaired by pricing opponent David Weprin, who had requested it. Quinn added two members to Baez’s committee last fall, improving the plan’s chances for passage. But committee member Lew Fidler, D-Brooklyn, says the nine-member panel is split. He pegs the uncommitted Larry Seabrook, D-Bronx, as a potential swing vote.

Seabrook is one of 20 council members to sign the letter requesting "fairer" fees be assessed on New Jersey drivers as part of any congestion pricing plan. He is also one of eight council members to officially endorse PlaNYC last June.

Crain's also notes that Fidler predicts a close vote in the council as a whole, while John Liu believes pricing will pass after some tinkering to make it easier for Albany to swallow.

The Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission, whose job it was to evaluate Mayor Michael Bloomberg's congestion pricing plan, has succeeded in only making a bad plan worse.

... it seems this new version has raised more questions than it has answered.

But rather than raising more questions, Dinowitz, for the most part, simply restates the same asked-and-answered arguments we've come to know by heart. Still, at the risk of repeating ourselves, we thought we'd answer them again, one by one, for old time's sake.

Who could support a plan that creates a regressive tax on middle-class and working people from the Bronx and the outer boroughs while giving an exemption to drivers from New Jersey who are more likely to be able to afford such a tax?

According to census data, less than five percent of New Yorkers drive into Manhattan's central business district for work. An analysis by the Tri-State Transportation Campaign and the Pratt Center for Community Development shows that in all but one state Assembly district in the city, households with a vehicle are 50 percent wealthier than those without. In nearly half of the districts -- including Dinowitz's -- average income is twice as high. So actual figures suggest that the popular "regressive tax" cry is so much faux-populist bluster. Further, nearly all of the "middle-class and working people" Dinowitz and other pricing opponents claim to be speaking up for are now relying on a transit system that will benefit from congestion pricing.

As for the toll credit "exemption," New Jersey drivers would pay $8 to enter the CBD, same as everyone else, even if the money doesn't go into the same pot. Are New Jerseyans really "more likely to be able to afford" a fee than New Yorkers? If so, Dinowitz offers no data to back the claim. Even if he did, the argument itself is a red herring intended to put New Yorkers on defense against "the other" -- just as Dinowitz and his fellow pricing opponents have tried to cast the "Manhattan elite" as the beneficiaries of a plan designed mainly to improve access to Manhattan from outside the borough.

Also among my chief concerns is the fact that there have been no assurances that the money generated from the plan will actually be spent on improving mass transit.

Dinowitz must have missed out on the opportunity to get with McCaffrey and City Council Member David Weprin when they called a January press conference to raise this same issue. Thing is, state and city electeds were already working on a "lock box" to secure pricing revenues for transit, and the TCMC plan includes such a "dedicated transit account." Has Assemblyman Dinowitz actually read the commission recommendation?

There is no guarantee that the revenues generated by the plan will be as much as the city is claiming, and there is also no guarantee that the expenses involved in setting up and running this project won't be even more costly than they expect.

This is technically true, but the same can be said of any government plan -- or any business model, for that matter. What is known is the cost of doing nothing would be catastrophic for the MTA. Just ask Elliot Sander.

Furthermore, it is important to remember that in the initial MTA proposal, there was not a single improvement recommended for mass transit in the western half of the Bronx.

Though the city says there will be increased service on the 1 train and funding for Bus Rapid Transit service on Fordham Road, and there are references in PlaNYC to making better use of Metro-North and exploring new ferry service, Dinowitz has a point here. But instead of expending so much effort assailing a plan that would fund improvements to transit infrastructure that almost fifty percent of his constituents depend on, perhaps he could use his position as a state lawmaker to expedite and augment those upgrades. Of course, if the relative lack of transit options in the western Bronx mattered all that much to him, he probably would have been doing that already.

To make matters worse, it is shocking that the city has not done an environmental study for a project of this magnitude. There is no way of knowing, for example, if this plan will actually result in cleaner air for Manhattan or, even worse, perhaps more pollution for the residents of the Bronx.

Again, the commission report includes a recommendation for environmental monitoring to begin as soon as the plan is implemented, with adjustments to be made as needed. This is an especially spurious argument, since Dinowitz and other pricing foes would certainly shred any preemptive environmental study that didn't back up their position, just as they have criticized the TCMC process, which itself was initiated after complaints that the mayor's original plan was being forced through Albany. And what do you know, a revised plan approved by 13 members of a 17-member bi-partisan commission after months of public hearings isn't good enough either.

There is the very real possibility that commuters will begin using the outer boroughs as a parking lot to avoid paying the congestion pricing fee.

Surely Dinowitz is aware that the city plans to institute residential parking permits to discourage park-and-ride activity. He must know that DOT has, for the last two weeks, held neighborhood parking workshops in areas that would border the pricing zone to gather public input on same, and that the pricing plan recommended by the commission includes an RPP provision. And he must know, if he's done his homework, that the "edge effect" is a generally discredited phenomena that has not proven a problem in cities where congestion pricing is in place. In fact, research by the TCMC shows that congestion in border neighborhoods would actually decrease with pricing in effect. But reality-based evidence and research would not serve Dinowitz's purpose nearly as well as another inflammatory broadside.

Among some of the commission's other faults in their revised plan is the fact that the West Side Highway and FDR Drive will now be included in the congestion pricing zone so that someone driving from Bronx to Brooklyn would have to pay the fee, and that surcharges will be added to passengers in taxi cabs.

The commission's recommendation to expand the cordon to include the West Side Highway and FDR Drive is indeed new, and since Dinowitz is opposed to the concept of congestion pricing it makes sense that he would be against broadening the plan's scope -- though he gives no credit to the commission for recommending the zone's northern border be moved from 86th to 60th Street. As for taxi surcharges, in September Dinowitz complained that taxis and car services would be exempt, offering further confirmation that no matter how many times congestion pricing is reviewed, discussed and altered, the assemblyman and his cohorts will never be satisfied, and the possibility of yet another volley of hackneyed half-truths and outright obfuscations will always be as close as the next news cycle.

The Daily News reports:

State and city officials are hashing out a plan to ensure congestion pricing money pays for mass transit upgrades -- and mass transit upgrades only, sources said Wednesday.

Under the developing plan, net proceeds from new tolls for motorists entering a large section of Manhattan would be put in a "lock box" administered by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, sources in City Hall and Gov. Spitzer's office said.

The fund could only be used for transit projects that meet specific criteria, which would be spelled out by state legislation, sources said.

A member of Gov. Spitzer's administration confirmed that Spitzer will include the creation of the MTA account as a line-item in the proposed budget he unveils next week.

At a Congestion Mitigation Commission hearing yesterday at Hunter College (which saw the notable emergence of a pro-pricing coalition of advocates for low-income transit customers), Regional Plan Association President Bob Yaro testified that similar measures have successfully earmarked transit funds for decades.

The MTA's revenues at their bridge and tunnels in excess of operating costs is guaranteed by formula set by the State Legislature for use by the MTA for transit since 1968. Taxes such as the mortgage recording tax, petroleum business tax, corporate franchise tax and sales tax have also been reliably dedicated to transit since the early 1980s. It should not be difficult to establish a mechanism for congestion pricing revenue that would do the same, while requiring the use of the funds by the MTA on the projects agreed to by the MTA and the City.

Yaro also rebutted opponents' claims that the Traffic Commission's alternative pricing plan is worse than the Mayor's because it gives Manhattanites a free ride. Yaro said:

The inclusion of increased metered parking rates and a taxi surcharge within the zone, as well as the elimination of the resident park tax exemption [in the Alternative Plan] ensure that residents of the charging zone pay their share.

As key arguments against pricing are dismantled, and as the MTA and its working-class ridership finally find their collective voice, congestion pricing's impact on neighborhoods just outside the zone remains a focus of the vocal opposition.

Studies of London's congestion pricing plan showed "no adverse impact" or major parking problems on the outskirts of the congestion pricing zone. The Department of Transportation is responding to the park-and-ride concern by putting big resources into a second round of citywide neighborhood parking workshops starting next week. And, of course, Mayor Bloomberg recently announced a major crackdown on government employee parking placard abuse.

The question is whether any of that will be enough for legislators like State Senator George Onorato, who rallied a recent town hall meeting in Astoria, Queens with the cry, "We would be the parking lot for all the Long Island commuters."

Of course, this isn't helping either.

The good news for Mayor Bloomberg is that he's likely to win some sort of "congestion pricing" plan by the spring now that the Assembly speaker, Sheldon Silver, is on board with developing a plan to reduce Manhattan traffic by charging a fee to drivers. This is noteworthy because Mr. Silver has played the recurring role of obstructionist to some of Mr. Bloomberg's boldest ideas during the past six years.

We won't know what congestion pricing really means until much closer to the March 31 deadline for final approval from the City Council and state Legislature. We do know there's no chance the ultimate agreement will look much like the original proposal for using hundreds of cameras to charge $8 a car for all cars below 86th Street — with a rebate for any tolls drivers paid to enter Manhattan.

That initial idea actually gives a free ride to drivers who enter Manhattan via the Triborough Bridge, Midtown Tunnel or Battery Tunnel (already exactly $8 round-trip with E-Z Pass) and a big discount to New Jersey drivers (who pay $5 round-trip) with E-Z Pass. The big losers under the original plan are those drivers from Westchester, Brooklyn and Queens who currently travel free on bridges.

The final deal will likely put a bigger burden on New Jersey drivers while adding some fee for drivers who currently pay nothing to enter Manhattan. The city council is the biggest obstacle, because 30 of the 51 members hail from Brooklyn and Queens. They understand clearly how the initial "congestion pricing" plan targets their constituents.

"Congestion pricing could be three blocks with some cameras around them," quipped one person involved in the process who doesn't particularly like any of the ideas currently being floated. "But there will be something the mayor can call 'congestion pricing' by the time this is done."

Despite vocal opposition from Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz and City Council Member David Weprin, Congestion Mitigation Commission Chair Marc Shaw has insisted that East River bridge tolls remain on the table, with Assembly Member Richard Brodsky applauding them as "a step in the right direction". What remains to be seen, tolls or no tolls, is whether the plan that emerges from the commission (now meeting as of this writing) will pick up or lose support in the council, where 20 members (plus one) were warm to the original concept back in August. Then there is the $354 million dollar question of whether the federal government can also call the final version "congestion pricing."

And, of course, what of the payoff for Silver? The Sun speculates:

Mr. Bloomberg's determination to do something about the unacceptable traffic that frustrates everyone trying to move around Manhattan is benefiting from a combination of technology and timing. Cameras can now easily read license plates to ensure drivers pay up, far different from just a few years ago when actual toll booths were needed. And there are genuine environmental benefits, making the general concept difficult to oppose in the year that green has gone mainstream.

In congestion pricing, Mr. Bloomberg seems finally to have stumbled upon a bold idea Mr. Silver will embrace. As a shrewd negotiator who's mastered the patience of waiting until the last minute, Mr. Silver will surely extract some concessions — such as more cops on the street to prevent double parking and crack down on drivers who created gridlock by blocking the box. 

Also included is a handy breakdown of the income differential between households that have a car (or cars) and those that don't, again showing that car owners are usually significantly wealthier than their transit-dependent neighbors.

This data will be very useful to take your local elected official during the upcoming public hearings:

The prevailing pattern holds true in anti-pricing Congressman Anthony Weiner's district as well, where just 5% of commuters use their private vehicles to travel to the proposed congestion pricing zone.

Although he was welcomed back by old school chum Councilman David Weprin, many rank and file club members, including the councilman, expressed grave misgivings about the mayor's congestion pricing plans.

Robert Friedrich, president of the Glen Oaks Village Owners Inc, said that congestion pricing was on everyone's mind. He indicated that he represents a working class community. "How do you justify pricing on grounds of congestion when you're charging people who can't afford it?" he asked.

Sander reiterated his support for the plan. "In an era of global warming we need resources for transit. We're not going to find the money to respond to increase population on Queens Boulevard and the Hillside Avenue corridor without it."

When Friedrich countered that the tax will be very regressive, hitting lower income residents far harder than those earning $100,000, Sanders said he wasn't going to argue it won't have negative effects, but he thought it was a case of the greatest good for the largest number.

One club member, who asked not to be named commented, "It's all crap. Bloomberg is a billionaire, he doesn't even notice the money."

From a Streetsblog tipster:

Wouldn't it be nice if we could all get the City Council treatment?

Last night, NYC Councilmember David Weprin made an appearance at the Delacorte Theater in Central Park to let the public know that he helped direct taxpayer dollars to support Shakespeare in the Park. But unlike the hundreds of theater goers who walked the two blocks from Central Park West to the theater, Councilman Weprin had his driver illegally enter the loop road -- which was closed to vehicles so joggers, walkers, and bikers could enjoy some exercise without being menaced by traffic -- drive to the theater, and park illegally on grass and pavers by the side of the road. The area where his car was parked was dense with pedestrians as they gathered for the theater.

Central Park is a big place and one car can always fit in the park, but if everyone were to use Central Park like Councilman Weprin, Central Park would be one big traffic jam and parking lot. I suspect that it never occurred to Councilman Weprin that his driving might damage the fragile fabric of Central Park. Most cars in the city drive without the slightest sense that they are surrounded by children and senior citizens and that their driving harms the neighborhoods through which they pass.

No one likes living in a traffic choked world. The people who drive in New York City need to be aware of how they contribute to the degradation of our communities. Our elected officials should serve as role models for the rest of society rather than sending the message that personal benefit is more important than public good.

Photo: Larry Greenberg, QCLDA

This entire line of discussion, Brodsky says in this letter to Tri-State Transportation Campaign executive director Kate Slevin, represents the deterioration of of public and political discourse and "the politics of personal destruction." Brodsky believes that despite their numerous, detailed studies over the last few years, congestion pricing advocates have failed to address the substance of his objections. It's not exactly clear what Slevin wrote that so offended Brodsky. Tri-State addresses Assembly Members' congestion pricing falsehoods in this article.

Here is his letter to Slevin:

July 13, 2007

Ms. Kate Slevin
350 W. 31st Street, Suite 802
New York, NY 10001

Dear Ms. Slevin:

I've read your Statement entitled Asemblymember Brodsky and Councilmember Weprin: Fighting for the People, or for Parkings Special Interests? and after much reflection, I'm writing to you about it.

The substance of my concerns about the Mayor's various congestion pricing proposals are set forth in the Interim Report: An Inquiry into Congestion Pricing as Proposed in PlaNYC 2030 and S.6068. The Report was the result of six weeks of analysis and careful consideration. It sets forth my deeply held concerns about the use of pricing mechanisms to distribute public goods, invasion of privacy, regressiveness, and the elimination of SEQR and public health protections, practical concerns about air quality in neighborhoods surrounding the Zone, toll offsets, and exemptions for taxicabs, and pointed out that the legislation doesn't require the revenues to be used for capital mass transit, does not put into place mass transit improvements prior to implementation, does not contain any privacy protections, and is not a pilot program. I trust you read the Interim Report before you issued your Statement. I assume that you will offer criticism of the substance of the Report at some point, and as always, I welcome any thoughtful critique of my work and views.

Along with many other thoughtful Americans, I have watched with dismay, distress, and ultimately disgust as public and political discourse has deteriorated. What Senator Clinton has rightly called the politics of personal destruction has become commonplace. Attack on motive and character are substituted for argument about ideas and values. It's wrong, we should not participate in it, and when we see it we should call it by its name.

In your statement, referring to me, you say, "While these legislators paint themselves as populists representing middle and low-income New Yorkers, the money trail clearly leads back to the parking lobby."

You may actually believe that the Report and my concerns are motivated by my desire to please the parking lobby, that I'm Fighting... for Parking's Special Interests and Pandering To The Priviliged, that its arguments are intended to satisfy campaign contributors, and that my stated concerns are hypocrisy or at least not genuinely reflective of my views. I almost would prefer that you did so believe. Whatever revulsion I feel about such false and malicious personal attacks, it would be truly intolerable if you didn't believe it, and were saying so for some other reason.

I think it would be helpful to remind you that when I was leading the efforts to stop the Mayor's proposal for the West Side Stadium, or when I authored and led the successful fight for the Transportation Bond Act, or when I authored the Clean Air Act, the Environmental Protection Fund, investigated wrongdoing at the MTA and the Hudson River Park Trust, protected private bus operations when the Mayor and the MTA were seeking to reduce them, led the successful fight for clean buses for the MTA... well, I could go on. When I was doing these things, when I introduced legislation against congestion pricing in 1995, there was a sense that I was committed to a vision of the public interest, and said what I believed to be in the public interest even when it was not popular or well received by the powerful and influential. I suppose it is possible that all of that has changed. But, although it is somewhat awkward and a bit self-serving, I can assure you that it hasn't changed, that I remain consistent in my concerns and my willingness to serve the public interest as I understand it, that I believe the Report reaches intelligent and valuable conclusions, and that I haven't yet heard otherwise from Transportation Alternatives.

If we are to consider sources of financial support as relevant to why we take the positions we take, perhaps all of us would benefit from a review of our funding sources. I raised over $2 million during recent years, largely from progressive sources, but including friends who had a variety of business interests. During the same time, the Mayor, to his enormous credit, has given huge sums of money to organizations, some of which support his congestion pricing plan. Although I am not familiar with how Transportation Alternatives funds its activities on behalf of legislation it is supporting, I would be surprised if you were not supported by folks who have business interests in the City, or with respect to the use of bicycles, or other kinds of alternative transportation. And I believe that the Mayor, and your supporters are sincere and honest in their advocacy, business activities, and support, and should continue that support. Unlike Transportation Alternatives, I would not dream of suggesting that the Mayor, you or they were anything but sincere in the positions you take.

I have written to you partially to correct the public record about your attack on me. But I mourn for a climate of public discourse which fosters attack on motives, and trashes opponents no matter what their record or the seriousness of their policy concerns. And I truly feel it will be helpful if such attacks are challenged not just because they are inaccurate, but because they disserve all of us who participate in public life. Perhaps your statement illuminates more about Transportation Alternatives than it does about me.

At any rate, I will persist in my concerns that we reject pricing mechanisms for the purpose of social control, that we do not put loopholes in SEQR, that we protect air quality and public health, that we fund mass transit capital projects, that we deal with congestion effectively, and that we be able to take public positions without vilification.

Best Wishes,

Richard Brodsky

In his radio address this weekend, Mayor Bloomberg urged state lawmakers to "put aside their competing interests and come together" on the issue of congestion pricing. "To leave this half a billion dollars just sitting on the table would be absolutely ridiculous." In response, Brodsky told the New York Times:

We don't have any competing interests. We're interested only in the public interest, and the first thing the public interest requires is someone to actually look at the mayor's plan, fairly and thoroughly.

Yet, over the last five years Assembly Member Brodsky has accepted at least $16,700 in campaign contributions from parking garage interests, according to the New York State Board of Elections. Brodsky's parking industry contributions far exceed those of any other state legislator (though Queens City Council Member David Weprin leads the pack with his $20,500 $40,650 haul). Specifically, Brodsky's contributions have come from the Metropolitan Parking Association and the Mallah family, the owner of several parking companies and sometimes referred to as New York City's "parking royalty."

The Mallah family has interests in several parking corporations including Merit Parking, Mallah Parking Corporation, Advance Parking, and Icon Parking. Shelly Mallah is also associated with New York City's Metropolitan Parking Association and has made campaign contributions to its political action committee.

Vincent Petraro, the executive director of the Metropolitan Parking Association, a trade group representing about 800 lots and garages in New York City, has served as an intermediary for political campaign contributions for Sheldon Mallah, according to the NYC Campaign Finance Board. Petraro is also a board member of Queens Chamber of Commerce and chairman of its Legislative Advocacy Committee.

Parking industry contributions to Richard Brodsky:

$1,000	12/01/05	Sheldon Mallah
$1,000	12/01/05	Sandra Mallah
$500	3/28/05	Metro Parking Association
$400	3/25/04	Sandra Mallah
$500	5/20/04	Sheldon Mallah
$1,000	5/20/04	Sandra Mallah
$2,000	4/29/04	Sandra Mallah
$800	3/25/04	Sheldon Mallah
$500	12/30/03	Sheldon Mallah
$1,000	12/30/03	Sandra Mallah
$1,000	6/26/03	Sheldon Mallah
$2,000	6/23/03	Sandra Mallah
$1,000	3/03/03	Sandra Mallah
$1,000	11/22/02	Sandra Mallah
$1,000	8/26/02	Sandra Mallah
$1,000	8/26/02	Sandra Mallah
$1,000	5/06/02	Sandra Mallah

TOTAL: $16,700

How do Brodsky's parking industry contributions compare? No other state legislator even comes close to the levels of contributions received by Brodsky from the Mallahs and the Metropolitan Parking Association since 2002.

Marty Golden	$1,500
Denny Farrell	$1,000
Sheldon Silver	$1,000
Joe Lentol	$750
John Sabini	$500
Danny O’Donnell	$500
Rory Lancman	$500
Michael Cusick	$250
Mark Weprin	$250

Hint: "The answer might depend on who you think is the giant."

Which coalition has been winning so far in the congestion pricing wars? So far, at least, the pro-congestion pricing forces have been on the defensive, even though they appear to be much better organized and financed and have the support of three bedrock organizations of municipal influence: the Partnership for New York City, the Regional Plan Association and the Citizens Budget Commission.

But it is not clear that supporters of congestion pricing have won enough public support, despite having achieved broad support among organized interests. Meanwhile, opponents of congestion pricing, like the Queens Civic Congress, have had a lower test to meet; their goal is to defeat the traffic fees by raising just enough doubt and skepticism -- with a public that is already doubtful and skeptical.

No matter that the overwhelming majority of commuters to Manhattan do not need to drive, or that the money raised from traffic fees would be used to improve mass transit across the city. The point is that the opponents of congestion pricing, like the Queens Civic Congress, have so far managed to create enough doubt around the idea -- a doubt that has swayed many Assembly members.

Of course it's easy to raise doubt and skepticism about a complex issue when one's arguments are largely unburdened by facts. Take this passage on Council Member David Weprin from today's Metro, in which the paper itself -- as does the City Room passage above -- refutes a rote, yet mostly baseless, objection to congestion pricing.

"I represent a district in eastern Queens that for most people is four or five miles from the nearest subway,” he said. "It is also not accessible to buses. You can’t tell me that they’re going to start building subways and changing bus lines in time if they’re going to adopt this congestion tax now."

Yet that is the stated intention of the Bloomberg administration, which hopes to first increase bus service to areas that lack subway access before implementing congestion pricing. More than half of the projected $500 million federal grant would supposedly go for transportation improvements. For example, one neighborhood in Weprin’s district -- Bayside -- is already slated to get new and expanded bus service under the mayor’s long-term sustainability plan, dubbed PlaNYC.

Weprin, though, remains unconvinced.

"The mayor is asking Albany to act now on the congestion tax and to worry about the public transportation improvements later," he said. "That’s backwards."

So Weprin wants to kill the plan to finance the improvements he says are needed before the plan he wants to kill can be implemented.

David and Goliath? Sure, if this version has a looking glass...

The Post finds that Queens City Council Member David Weprin has been raking in campaign contributions from parking garage owners, all the while serving as one of the loudest critics of Mayor Bloomberg's congestion pricing plan. This ought to sound familiar to Streetsblog readers. Back in May we found that Weprin had taken in at least $20,500 in contributions from the parking lobby. The Post identified an additional twenty grand:

Records show that David Weprin, chairman of the City Council Finance Committee, received 28 contributions totaling $40,650 from garage companies and their owners. Garage operators are worried about losing customers if the city imposes an $8-a-day fee on cars entering Manhattan, and they want to stop the mayor's plan in its tracks.

Austin Shafran, a Weprin spokesman, said the contributions had "absolutely nothing to do with his opposition to congestion pricing."

A survey conducted last week by The Queens Tribune found only two of 27 Queens state legislators who backed the mayor's plan. But one key Queens legislator, Rep. Joseph Crowley, who also serves as the Queens Democratic chairman, is in the mayor's corner. The Metropolitan Parking Association, which represents 800 lots and garages, contributed $5,000 last year to the Queens Democratic Party.

In this May 10 op-ed for the Queens Courier, Weprin argues that his Eastern Queens constituents will be "devastated" by congestion pricing.

Photo: Larry Greenberg, QCLDA

It may not be a significant amount in relative terms, but since taking office in 2002 Weprin has accepted at least $20,500 in campaign contributions from parking garage owners and operators, almost all of them with facilities in Manhattan. During the 2003 reporting cycle alone, Weprin collected over $14,000 from the parking garage lobby, with three garage owners contributing the maximum permitted by law.

The most recent contributions on file date to this year. In other words, as Weprin campaigns against congestion pricing, parking garage owners are writing checks to his campaign committee.

The latest edition of the Queens Courier features two anti-pricing editorials: one from the paper's editors, and the other by Weprin, who, responding to a pro-pricing argument from the Partnership for New York City's Kathryn Wylde, refers to congestion pricing as a "tax" 10 times in 500 words. Yet he offers no alternative solutions on how to pay for the mass transit expansion he and other pricing opponents purport to favor. Coincidentally, during the 2005 campaign finance reporting cycle, Weprin received $100 from Vicki Schneps -- publisher of the Queens Courier, as well as Queensborough, newsletter of the ill-informed propaganda machine that is the Queens Chamber of Commerce.

Where does your council member stand? From whom does s/he accept contributions? Follow the money.

In his latest article for the Gotham Gazette, Bruce Schaller, head of Schaller Consulting, and author of  "CITYinFLUX: Understanding and Untangling Traffic and Transportation in NYC" writes that the the most biting criticism of congestion pricing, mostly coming from representatives of areas outside of Manhattan, is the claim that a fee is an unfair tax on the working person:

U.S. Representative Anthony Weiner, who plans to run for mayor in 2009, charged that the proposal "creates class conflict" and constitutes a "regressive tax on working middle-class families and small-business owners."

Yet the fact is that outer borough auto commuters tend to have higher incomes than subway commuters, so a fee that improves transit is actually more equitable than the current system. In fact, auto commuters who use the free bridges are being subsidized by transit users whose taxes pay for bridge reconstruction and maintenance. Is that equitable?

Schaller goes on to challenge the skeptics:

Opponents will have to respond to the public's increasing focus on environmental aspects of this issue. The mayor pointed out that childhood asthma rates are four times higher in the city than nationally. How unfair are steps to reduce vehicle emissions that carry these severe health effects? Given the public's desire to see something done about traffic congestion, opponents will also have to convince people suggest that they have a better idea.

Councilmember Weprin called for "simple traffic mitigation alternatives to reduce congestion," but the city has made major avenues one-way, timed signals to maximize traffic flow, restricted turns and taken numerous other auto-friendly steps. Will the public buy the idea that a few more tweaks will significantly reduce congestion, especially in light of the anticipated city's growth?

Congestion pricing clearly faces an uphill climb. But the more New Yorkers understand the benefits of the mayor's entire plan, the more support congestion pricing is likely to increase.

Photo: smoothdude/Flickr