Comments ktsj1981 has made
Response to Mr. Komanoff
Mr. Komanoff's first bullet is not true. The bill did not provide for a pilot. Congestion pricing would have been a permanent program. Congestion pricing approved prior to an enviornmental analysis is a terrible precedent to set.
Of course congestion pricing is regressive. To sight Mr. Komanoff's examples, Mr. Brodsky's constituents, with a larger income, were largely excused from paying the congestion fee.
Readers will decide for themselves if Mr. Komanoff attacked Mr. Brodsky personally.
Best Wishes,
Christopher Valens
Communications Director
Assemblyman Richard BrodskyOn Ten reasons NYC's congestion pricing plan went belly up posted 1 year, 7 months ago 18 ResponsesAnswers
The Assemblyman has asked me to respond to your two questions.
- The Assemblyman has proposed legislation (A.10198) to crack down on traffic violations (block-the-box, illegal parking), reduce the illegal use of parking placards, and raise fares on both taxis and black cars (the largest source of congestion) to raise funds and encourage the use of public transportation. He also supports "the millionares tax" which would raise significant funds for transporation and he's proposed a carbon tax. These measures will significantly reduce congestion and raise money for transporation without adding another burden to the middle class.
- The guarantee of federal funding is a myth. If you look at the MOU, it states that the federal government is not legally bound to give New York the $354 million, even with the passage of congestion pricing. Federal funding should always be applied for, but should not be the sole reason to pass flawed legislation.
Christopher Valens
Communications Director
Assemblyman Richard BrodskyOn Ten reasons NYC's congestion pricing plan went belly up posted 1 year, 7 months ago 18 Responses- The Assemblyman has proposed legislation (A.10198) to crack down on traffic violations (block-the-box, illegal parking), reduce the illegal use of parking placards, and raise fares on both taxis and black cars (the largest source of congestion) to raise funds and encourage the use of public transportation. He also supports "the millionares tax" which would raise significant funds for transporation and he's proposed a carbon tax. These measures will significantly reduce congestion and raise money for transporation without adding another burden to the middle class.
Mr. Komanof's List
After working with Mr. Komanoff for years on issues as varied as closing Indian Point, my authorship of New York's Clean Air Act, Environmental Bond Act and most recently my efforts to enact a carbon tax in New York, it was interesting to read his analysis of my record and persona. The many principled and practical reasons that the Mayor's plan failed should be examined, including its evisceration of SEQRA, a precedent that will surely come back to haunt us. Mr. Komanoff did leave one fundamental reason for the failure off his list. The repeated contemptuous and ad hominem attacks on those who did not support congestion pricing backfired and caused many legislators to believe that vitriol and threats were the tools of those who would not reason and debate. The Mayor, and many of his allies, consistently refuse to recognize that people who oppose congestion pricing can do so because they believe that pricing mechanisms are not the way to solve social problems, and that ability-to-pay should not govern access to public places. Our objections are principled and deeply felt, even if we are wrong. As for the name-calling and other personal attacks, they diminish the public debate and, perhaps, those who engage in them. So, for the record, as to the charges of being counterfactual, glib and savvy, an author of faux-populist screeds, and being impervious to reason,...not guilty. Surely we can disagree on important issues without attacking each others' motives. We'll see.
Richard BrodskyOn Ten reasons NYC's congestion pricing plan went belly up posted 1 year, 7 months ago 18 Responses