6 ms·

how can we keep the system running with the atrociously-limited amount of money we get from the state I've been saying for a while that NYC should cecede from

by rquantz 11y ago

how can we keep the system running with the atrociously-limited amount of money we get from the state I've been saying for a while that NYC should cecede from New York State. We send more money Upstate than they send down, and in return we still aren't allowed to run the socialist utopia most city residents actually want. Make the mayor a governor, and we'll have a noble experiment on our hands.

chimeracoder 11y ago
> I've been saying for a while that NYC should cecede from New York State. We send more money Upstate than they send down, Much as I'd love for key NYC infrastructure (namely the MTA) to be free from the grips of Albany, this would never work. New York City is so intrinsically dependent on infrastructure from the surrounding areas that it would be a nightmare to try and negotiate that across state lines. Negotiating water rights alone would be an absolute mess. > we still aren't allowed to run the socialist utopia most city residents actually want Uh, no, "most" residents of New York City don't want a socialist utopia. Just because four of the five boroughs voted for Obama in 2008 doesn't mean NYC is some bastion of radical left-wing thought. Let's not forget that the city voted Bloomberg in three times. (If you really want a deeper analysis, you might want to note that New York City politics is also influenced by people of color to a degree that no other major city in the US is. While they tend to vote reliably for Democratic candidates, black and Latino voters are empirically far less liberal[0] than their white counterparts in the Democratic party). [0] Ignore the op-ed itself; the graph halfway down the page illustrates the data very well: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/09/upshot/what-the-hispanic-vote-says-about-bernie-sanderss-chances.html?rref=upshot http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/09/upshot/what-the-hispanic-v...
- rquantz 11y ago
  Sorry, "socialist utopia" in this case is reclaimed from the Republican insanity of the last 8 years, where any government program is "socialism" and ergo synonymous with evil. I'm not suggesting the majority of New Yorkers want a dictatorship of the proletariat, I just mean most of us want to have the public infrastructure necessary to live in the city, and would probably be ok with better social programs. And would you deny that the city is more "liberal" than Upstate?
- jdminhbg 11y ago
  > New York City politics is also influenced by people of color to a degree that no other major city in the US is Washington, DC?
  - chimeracoder 11y ago
    > Washington, DC? Okay, though I guess it depends on your definition of 'major city'. D.C. proper doesn't even have 1/10th the population of NYC; it's smaller than even El Paso, TX and Charlotte, NC. It doesn't even break the top 20 largest cities in the country. Though more importantly, D.C. is unique politically because it's not awarded the rights of a state, and therefore not protected from the federal government the way literally every other city in the US is. (Even San Juan, Puerto Rico, has more autonomy from the federal government in some ways than D.C. does)
    - mikeash 11y ago
      That last part is key for this particular tidbit. "People of color" influence DC politics only to the extent that the old white men in the Capitol tolerate it. Case in point, recent efforts to legalize marijuana locally have run into a lot of trouble because certain Congressmen make it their mission to oppose such things.
      - chimeracoder 11y ago
        > "People of color" influence DC politics only to the extent that the old white men in the Capitol tolerate it. Exactly. D.C is the only city whose local politics are directly subject to the whims of Congress. > Case in point, recent efforts to legalize marijuana locally have run into a lot of trouble Yes, and not just recent efforts - D.C. legalized medical marijuana in 1998 by popular vote, but the Barr amendment overruled it. (Yes, Bob Barr, who later ran for president on the Libertarian Party ticket, blocked D.C. from being able to legalize medical marijuana)
jrockway 11y ago
That will never happen. We should carefully look at where our tax dollars are going; city resident taxes should be enough to run NYCT, and the city tax paid for non-residents that work in NYC (I think this exists, paid by the employer?) should ensure that the other MTA railroads are funded. Ultimately, the idea of democracy is to provide equal protection for all, and so NYC's relative prosperity should be funding some upstate initiatives. That said, administrative control of the subway should be entirely in NYC, and if we don't collect enough tax to run it to the standards we desire, we should be able to affect that change locally.
- rquantz 11y ago
  Yes, of course I know it will never happen (or rather, because never is a long time, it won't happen while the current political system is in place). I'd be perfectly fine with subsidizing upstate if they let us fund our own infrastructure. The fact that we give our tax dollars to them and then they tell us we can't raise enough money to pay for our subway, public housing, etc., is what makes me want to effect massive change.
sandworm101 11y ago
Go ahead. Leave. Take control of your subway. The people upstate will take this. Better get started on that desalination plant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rondout_Reservoir https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rondout_Reservoir (75 miles upstate) From Vancouver to Ancient Rome, every city in the world thinks it is somehow better managed than its hinterlands. City dwellers forget their urban lifestyle relies on a constant stream of resources from elsewhere. New York sends money upstate. Upstate sends water. You cannot drink money. If the economic and political ties were cut I know where I'd rather be.
- kchoudhu 11y ago
  Interstate commerce is a thing. We'll happily pay you for the water you send us.
  - sandworm101 11y ago
    Until NJ decides it is willing to pay more. Having both the city and the hinterlands under the same political structure ensures the hinterlands aren't going to go find a better city willing to pay a higher price. If you look at the old maps, that seems to be how the eastern states were laid out. Each of the large port cities were given their own hinterland to form a state.
    - rquantz 11y ago
      I'd imagine any deal to separate the city from the state (and it would have to be a deal, there would be no forcible exit) would include the city's purchase of that reservoir. Again, this is not about thinking we're better managed, it's about the fact that Albany won't allow us to meet our own needs.
      - ascagnel_ 11y ago
        The city already owns those reservoirs, as well as the water tunnels that deliver the water into the city (which require little maintenance, as they run on gravity rather than pumps).
Animats 11y ago
Not a new idea. Here's a call for it from 1905: "The time is comm' and though I'm no youngster, I may see it, when New York City will break away from the State and become a state itself. It's got to come. The feelin' between this city and the hayseeds that make a livin' by plunderin' it is every bit as bitter as the feelin' between the North and South before the war. And, let me tell you, if there ain't a peaceful separation before long, we may have the horrors of civil war right here in New York State. Why, I know a lot of men in my district who would like nothin' better today than to go out gunnin' for hayseeds! New York City has got a bigger population than most of the states in the Union. It's got more wealth than any dozen of them. Yet the people here, as I explained before, are nothin' but slaves of the Albany gang. We have stood the slavery a long, long time, but the uprisin' is near at hand. It will be a fight for liberty, just like the American Revolution. We'll get liberty peacefully if we can; by cruel war if we must. Just think how lovely things would be here if we had a Tammany Governor and Legislature meetin', say in the neighborhood of Fifty-ninth Street, and a Tammany Mayor and Board of Aldermen doin' business in City Hall! How sweet and peaceful everything would go on! The people wouldn't have to bother about nothin'. Tammany would take care of everything for them in its nice quiet way. You wouldn't hear of any conflicts between the state and city authorities. They would settle everything pleasant and comfortable at Tammany Hall, and every bill introduced in the Legislature by Tammany would be sure to go through. The Republicans wouldn't count. Imagine how the city would be built up in a short time! At present we can't make a public improvement of any consequence without goin' to Albany for permission, and most of the time we get turned down when we go there. But, with a Tammany Governor and Legislature up at Fifty-ninth Street, how public works would hum here! The Mayor and Aldermen could decide on an improvement, telephone the Capitol, have a bill put through in a jiffy and—there you are. We could have a state constitution, too, which would extend the debt limit so that we could issue a whole lot more bonds. As things are now, all the money spent for docks, for instance, is charged against the city in calculatin' the debt limit, although the Dock Department provides immense revenues. It's the same with some other departments. This humbug would be dropped if Tammany ruled at the Capitol and the City Hall, and the city would have money to burn." -- George Washington Plunkett [1] [1] http://www.gutenberg.org/files/2810/2810-h/2810-h.htm http://www.gutenberg.org/files/2810/2810-h/2810-h.htm

by rquantz 11y ago

chimeracoder 11y ago

> I've been saying for a while that NYC should cecede from New York State. We send more money Upstate than they send down, Much as I'd love for key NYC infrastructure (namely the MTA) to be free from the grips of Albany, this would never work. New York City is so intrinsically dependent on infrastructure from the surrounding areas that it would be a nightmare to try and negotiate that across state lines. Negotiating water rights alone would be an absolute mess. > we still aren't allowed to run the socialist utopia most city residents actually want Uh, no, "most" residents of New York City don't want a socialist utopia. Just because four of the five boroughs voted for Obama in 2008 doesn't mean NYC is some bastion of radical left-wing thought. Let's not forget that the city voted Bloomberg in three times. (If you really want a deeper analysis, you might want to note that New York City politics is also influenced by people of color to a degree that no other major city in the US is. While they tend to vote reliably for Democratic candidates, black and Latino voters are empirically far less liberal[0] than their white counterparts in the Democratic party). [0] Ignore the op-ed itself; the graph halfway down the page illustrates the data very well: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/09/upshot/what-the-hispanic-vote-says-about-bernie-sanderss-chances.html?rref=upshot http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/09/upshot/what-the-hispanic-v...

rquantz 11y ago
Sorry, "socialist utopia" in this case is reclaimed from the Republican insanity of the last 8 years, where any government program is "socialism" and ergo synonymous with evil. I'm not suggesting the majority of New Yorkers want a dictatorship of the proletariat, I just mean most of us want to have the public infrastructure necessary to live in the city, and would probably be ok with better social programs. And would you deny that the city is more "liberal" than Upstate?
jdminhbg 11y ago
> New York City politics is also influenced by people of color to a degree that no other major city in the US is Washington, DC?
- chimeracoder 11y ago
  > Washington, DC? Okay, though I guess it depends on your definition of 'major city'. D.C. proper doesn't even have 1/10th the population of NYC; it's smaller than even El Paso, TX and Charlotte, NC. It doesn't even break the top 20 largest cities in the country. Though more importantly, D.C. is unique politically because it's not awarded the rights of a state, and therefore not protected from the federal government the way literally every other city in the US is. (Even San Juan, Puerto Rico, has more autonomy from the federal government in some ways than D.C. does)
  - mikeash 11y ago
    That last part is key for this particular tidbit. "People of color" influence DC politics only to the extent that the old white men in the Capitol tolerate it. Case in point, recent efforts to legalize marijuana locally have run into a lot of trouble because certain Congressmen make it their mission to oppose such things.
    - chimeracoder 11y ago
      > "People of color" influence DC politics only to the extent that the old white men in the Capitol tolerate it. Exactly. D.C is the only city whose local politics are directly subject to the whims of Congress. > Case in point, recent efforts to legalize marijuana locally have run into a lot of trouble Yes, and not just recent efforts - D.C. legalized medical marijuana in 1998 by popular vote, but the Barr amendment overruled it. (Yes, Bob Barr, who later ran for president on the Libertarian Party ticket, blocked D.C. from being able to legalize medical marijuana)

jrockway 11y ago

That will never happen. We should carefully look at where our tax dollars are going; city resident taxes should be enough to run NYCT, and the city tax paid for non-residents that work in NYC (I think this exists, paid by the employer?) should ensure that the other MTA railroads are funded. Ultimately, the idea of democracy is to provide equal protection for all, and so NYC's relative prosperity should be funding some upstate initiatives. That said, administrative control of the subway should be entirely in NYC, and if we don't collect enough tax to run it to the standards we desire, we should be able to affect that change locally.

rquantz 11y ago
Yes, of course I know it will never happen (or rather, because never is a long time, it won't happen while the current political system is in place). I'd be perfectly fine with subsidizing upstate if they let us fund our own infrastructure. The fact that we give our tax dollars to them and then they tell us we can't raise enough money to pay for our subway, public housing, etc., is what makes me want to effect massive change.

sandworm101 11y ago

Go ahead. Leave. Take control of your subway. The people upstate will take this. Better get started on that desalination plant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rondout_Reservoir https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rondout_Reservoir (75 miles upstate) From Vancouver to Ancient Rome, every city in the world thinks it is somehow better managed than its hinterlands. City dwellers forget their urban lifestyle relies on a constant stream of resources from elsewhere. New York sends money upstate. Upstate sends water. You cannot drink money. If the economic and political ties were cut I know where I'd rather be.

kchoudhu 11y ago
Interstate commerce is a thing. We'll happily pay you for the water you send us.
- sandworm101 11y ago
  Until NJ decides it is willing to pay more. Having both the city and the hinterlands under the same political structure ensures the hinterlands aren't going to go find a better city willing to pay a higher price. If you look at the old maps, that seems to be how the eastern states were laid out. Each of the large port cities were given their own hinterland to form a state.
  - rquantz 11y ago
    I'd imagine any deal to separate the city from the state (and it would have to be a deal, there would be no forcible exit) would include the city's purchase of that reservoir. Again, this is not about thinking we're better managed, it's about the fact that Albany won't allow us to meet our own needs.
    - ascagnel_ 11y ago
      The city already owns those reservoirs, as well as the water tunnels that deliver the water into the city (which require little maintenance, as they run on gravity rather than pumps).

Animats 11y ago

Not a new idea. Here's a call for it from 1905: "The time is comm' and though I'm no youngster, I may see it, when New York City will break away from the State and become a state itself. It's got to come. The feelin' between this city and the hayseeds that make a livin' by plunderin' it is every bit as bitter as the feelin' between the North and South before the war. And, let me tell you, if there ain't a peaceful separation before long, we may have the horrors of civil war right here in New York State. Why, I know a lot of men in my district who would like nothin' better today than to go out gunnin' for hayseeds! New York City has got a bigger population than most of the states in the Union. It's got more wealth than any dozen of them. Yet the people here, as I explained before, are nothin' but slaves of the Albany gang. We have stood the slavery a long, long time, but the uprisin' is near at hand. It will be a fight for liberty, just like the American Revolution. We'll get liberty peacefully if we can; by cruel war if we must. Just think how lovely things would be here if we had a Tammany Governor and Legislature meetin', say in the neighborhood of Fifty-ninth Street, and a Tammany Mayor and Board of Aldermen doin' business in City Hall! How sweet and peaceful everything would go on! The people wouldn't have to bother about nothin'. Tammany would take care of everything for them in its nice quiet way. You wouldn't hear of any conflicts between the state and city authorities. They would settle everything pleasant and comfortable at Tammany Hall, and every bill introduced in the Legislature by Tammany would be sure to go through. The Republicans wouldn't count. Imagine how the city would be built up in a short time! At present we can't make a public improvement of any consequence without goin' to Albany for permission, and most of the time we get turned down when we go there. But, with a Tammany Governor and Legislature up at Fifty-ninth Street, how public works would hum here! The Mayor and Aldermen could decide on an improvement, telephone the Capitol, have a bill put through in a jiffy and—there you are. We could have a state constitution, too, which would extend the debt limit so that we could issue a whole lot more bonds. As things are now, all the money spent for docks, for instance, is charged against the city in calculatin' the debt limit, although the Dock Department provides immense revenues. It's the same with some other departments. This humbug would be dropped if Tammany ruled at the Capitol and the City Hall, and the city would have money to burn." -- George Washington Plunkett [1] [1] http://www.gutenberg.org/files/2810/2810-h/2810-h.htm http://www.gutenberg.org/files/2810/2810-h/2810-h.htm