Its good enough for the Trump devlopemnt between 57th and 72nd Streets in a true cosmopolitan manner.

http://cos-mobile.blogspot.com/2008/05/nyc-west-side-highway-in-box.html

Do I need to point out that they aren't your odds to decide?

You will be dead in 75 years, and therefore you have no natural sovereignty over the state of the airports in 75 years. You're making decisions for the future, before the future is born; they have no recourse once if they are screwed.

I may think my neighbor is an idiot for spending 30% of his income on beer instead of savings; but it is not my money to decide-with. Similarly, maybe the airports will in fact be useless in 2090; it's still not your call to make.

Another horrendous crash on WSD HWY was observed by us riding home last night at around 90th street at around midnight. Firefighters from 3 trucks where ripping apart car trying to get he passengers out.

This is ridiculous. I have moved on.

If it weren't the case that a majority of the money would be used in the first two years, there wouldn't have been any interest in doing the deal. That was the whole point. And it isn't just this decision or the federal debt, it is almost every decision for nearly 30 years, getting particularly bad after 1992 in NY State and 2000 everywhere.

“The people own the asset to be used today for this generation of people and not for 2050."

Those who are age 30 today will be age 80 in 2050, and in need. What's going on isn't a perpetual government policy to favor senior citizens over the young, who have other advantages. It is a disadvantaging of generations born later that will hit hardest when they themselves are old.

Look at this week's issue of The Economist. What to do about the soaring cost of entitlements? You take anything from those at or near retirement, of course, so you have to take things from younger generations. How about raising the age of eligibility for Medicare, to "encourage people to work longer." Doesn't The Economist understand that no one will hire a 55-year-old because of their health care costs, but they will hire a 65 year old because they get Medicare?

I don't think there is any infrastructure on offer with a 75-year lifetime, but please correct me if I'm wrong. Note that the NYC subway doesn't count, as pretty much the entire system has been replaced at least once during its lifetime.

Cheers,

--Ian

Also, forgot to mention this before, but zero cost of capital is equally moronic to an infinitely high one. Hard to imagine, but there is such a thing as over investment and China is driving 100 MPH towards their own day of reckoning. You might enjoy this report (the China report):

http://www.pivotcapital.com/research.html

So, "Biking Rules" mixes something optional and controversial, though recommended by TA and some others (helmets) with something which is more of a philosophy than a law (pedestrian priority - which I agree with) or "bike salmoning" (which NYC Bike Snob uses as a negative, whereas I would argue that going upstream to spawn and perpetuate the species is natural in a watercourse or city with one-way streets and this desperately needs to be legalized) and with actual traffic codes of NY. It is an imprecise and even dangerous framework for cycle training.

That said, "Lights Turn Heads" and the retro one are quite good examples of what should be expected from media makers in the media capital of the Universe. I am using the Beta version of "Helmet Blocker" (like Adblock) which digitally removes "head protection" to a level set by the user.

This is why I have no problems with governments leasing off the airports for long-term deals. No way will air travel be supported at its current levels in 75 years. That's a bet against the future I'd gladly take.

But I largely agree with Larry. This quote is astonishing, if not welcome for its candor:

“The people own the asset to be used today for this generation of people and not for 2050"

Tell me, how much moral obligation do you feel toward New York's "moral obligation bonds?"

The state constitution says all borrowing has to be approved by referendum; otherwise, future legislatures and people would be burdened by the past. So the judges appointed by the politicians came up with a ruse -- money could be borrowed as long as the funds to pay the debts were appropriated annually by each state legislature, thus not being an actual long term liability. They called those moral obligation bonds.

I feel no moral obligation. Put them at the top of things to cut. Does that mean more can't be borrowed without a referendum? Go ahead, make my day.

And speaking of which, I'm not sure we should be paying back the three bond issues that WERE passed by referendum with a promise of the Second Avenue Subway, until we actually get the subway.

What matters most of all is that this is yet another example of a generation that inherited the United States from those who came before selling it out from under those coming after. That was the real motivation, and the real decision. End of story.