10 ms·

One of the more ridiculous things about the chaos Hochul has wrought over the last 72 hours is that it isn't remotely clear that she can even order the suspensi

One of the more ridiculous things about the chaos Hochul has wrought over the last 72 hours is that it isn't remotely clear that she can even order the suspension of congestion pricing like this: it's the law of the land in New York, one she already signed, passed by our legislative branch, funded by taxes, and administrated solely by an independent public corporation (the MTA) that she has only minority authority over. It's the equivalent of a president signing a bill and then attempting to post-facto veto it. It's been very frustrating to see so little news (both local and national) pick up on this basic reality: Hochul is acting far beyond her constitutional powers as the governor, and the legislative branch has so far responded only tepidly (by refusing to pass her last-minute tax alternative).

bayareabadboy 2y ago
This is the core issue. Unchecked executive overreach, by politicians of both parties at the federal and state level, will end terribly for the republic. But no one cares if it serves their political interests.
- highcountess 2y ago
  I argue that it has already ended poorly for the republic since the republic effectively no longer actually exists and what does exist is a fraudulent and inherently illegitimate government based on its own words and actions. The Constitution that created the federal republic is essentially an agreement, a form of contract. It has been violated to every degree and in every imaginable way possible that the only thing holding any of this together is that people still have not realize that they still trust in a lie. I get indications that there is possibly a kind of realization starting to work its way through the country, where people are starting to realize just that … that they’ve been had, defrauded, conned, lied to, deceived, stolen from, plundered, and abused. We shall see how deep the cracks go once an economic event stresses the foundation. I’m agnostic on which way it will go or if the crack will cause the foundation to crack catastrophically. I could make arguments either way.
- ip26 2y ago
  Possibly a natural consequence of gridlocked legislature or judiciary. If only the executive branch can get anything done, allowing overreach is the only way for government to continue functioning. That doesn't mean it's good, but suggests directions for solutions.
  - Dalewyn 2y ago
    The legislature moving slowly is a feature; do you really want laws that can be permanent to be handled with wanton abandon? Especially if the electorate voting the legislature in is presumably divided on issues for debate? The executive can move quickly and has some special case exceptions to exercise them more broadly, namely justifiable emergencies, but their powers are supposed to be ephemeral at most owing to their speed. As for the judiciary, it's not their job to legislate in the first place so I'm not sure why you brought them up.
    - ip26 2y ago
      The legislature is supposed to move carefully, but it must still be able to actually legislate. US Congress, for example, is steadily passing fewer and fewer laws every year. If the current trend continues, fifty years from now Congress will enact zero new laws. That isn't being careful, that's paralyzed. https://www.reuters.com/graphics/USA-CONGRESS/PRODUCTIVITY/egpbabmkwvq/ https://www.reuters.com/graphics/USA-CONGRESS/PRODUCTIVITY/e... P.S. law is only permanent when the legislature is unable to enact new law to change or repeal it
      - Dalewyn 2y ago
        >[the legislature] must still be able to actually legislate No, it doesn't have to. Remember, the legislature is voted by the electorate, the voting public at large; the people of the city, county, state or country as applicable. If the legislature ends up so divided that passing laws with a supermajority to overrule executive vetos is impractical if not impossible, that suggests the people are divided and cannot come to a consensus on issues to be debated. Why should the legislature pass laws when the people can't come to an agreement? That's not democratic. If the people can't agree, neither should their representatives agree and it's the duty of the executive to veto such legislative overreach.
rulelawdead 2y ago
[flagged]
pudwallabee 2y ago
This has kind of always been the case hasnt it? The governor of the state has special powers over NYC. At least they have stepped in and bullied the city before, usually because the city is broke or has some crisis it needs the state to sort out with a pile of money. Personally, as a remote worker, it bugs me that she’s doing this to force people to go to work. So basically she wants the pollution and massive waste of resources if someone can sell a bunch of 15 dollar sandwiches and 10 dollar coffees at street level every day. In other words she wants to fleece employees either way. I feel for the business paying rent based on foot traffic in cities, however they know that if the foot traffic goes away, they can get out of their leases, since at least in malls etc the price per sq foot is based on foot traffic. But what I have zero interest in is this argument that I have to go to work so that I can be fleeced by businesses every time I walk down the street, so that they can stay in business. That is not my problem. Its pretty insulting given how much better for the environment and people’s personal lives it is to work remotely to treat us like a bunch of chickens going through a toll gate. Progressive companies that know the future have already let their leases go and gone full remote. More will follow. There will be no back to office.
- woodruffw 2y ago
  > This has kind of always been the case hasnt it? The governor of the state has special powers over NYC. At least they have stepped in and bullied the city before, usually because the city is broke or has some crisis it needs the state to sort out with a pile of money. To the best of my knowledge, the governor of New York absolutely does not have "special powers" over NYC. NYC's boroughs are normal municipalities for the purposes of state law. You might be thinking of the MTA, which was formed as an independent state corporation after the city's bankruptcy. This is a source of persistent local funding headaches, but is not a "special power": the MTA's board is intentionally not fully appointed by the governor, to prevent exactly this kind of unilateral maneuvering[1]. I don't really think this has anything to do with remote work or RTO, etc., either. Congestion pricing was a pre-COVID policy that's been on the table for well over a decade; it's sound policy purely in terms of making the MTA financially sustainable and reducing congestion and air and sound pollution within Manhattan. [1]: https://new.mta.info/transparency/leadership/board-members https://new.mta.info/transparency/leadership/board-members
loklgu7g 2y ago
[flagged]
DANmode 2y ago
The State government in New York has been run like a mafia family, (including premeditation and predestination of position appointment, legislation, policy shifts etc as the norm) for some time now. Please note: this can barely be considered a partisan comment.
roamerz 2y ago
>>far beyond her constitutional powers as the governor That’s because there are no penalties for violating the Oath of Office they take - the courts will simply override her decision at some point. If by chance they don’t she will simply reverse her decision - after the election. This is pure politics by a politician who cares only about herself and her party.
- gessha 2y ago
  Political parties are organizations fighting over political power. If they have local monopoly over power (which is the case in NY) they can do whatever they want without consequences. Multiparty systems should be a solution to this but often times fail because power concentrates in 2-3 parties in the short term.
  - iknowstuff 2y ago
    It only concentrates like that in FPTP systems. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo
    - vlovich123 2y ago
      Or you end up with a bunch of minority parties and one that has managed to cobble together a larger coalition. Multi party systems aren’t the panacea FPTP critics make it out to be (and I dislike FPTP as well). The truth of the matter is that people aren’t as varied in their opinions as you think in practice in a representative democracy. The reason is that while any single issue may have a plurality of opinions, democracies generally install a decision maker for all policies so you end up voting for the party that represents you on the issues you care about or has the leadership you’d like to see, which significantly narrows down the sets of opinions.
bradleyjg 2y ago
The board has 14 members.* The governor appoints five and the county executives of Nassau, Suffolk, and Westchester each appoint one. Board members historically have been creatures of their appointees, exercising no independent judgment. The suburbs hate this congestion pricing plan. So, yes, technically the governor can’t do this. Practically, she can. * not really, one of the votes is split into four pieces, but effectively
- afavour 2y ago
  It’s not even as simple as that. 2009 Public Authorities Reform Act states that the MTA board is an independent body and should be making all decisions with the MTA's fiscal responsibility its primary concern. It’s going to be really, really difficult to justify an 11th hour reversal that will leave the MTA in a financial pit. It’ll almost certainly lead to legal action. But I agree, they’ll probably still do it.
  - chimeracoder 2y ago
    > It’s not even as simple as that. 2009 Public Authorities Reform Act states that the MTA board is an independent body and should be making all decisions with the MTA's fiscal responsibility its primary concern. It’s going to be really, really difficult to justify an 11th hour reversal that will leave the MTA in a financial pit. It’ll almost certainly lead to legal action. They are legal fiduciaries, and they have been asked to vote to bankrupt the company for which they are fiduciaries. It's very difficult to find a way to square that circle legally, which is why Hochul has started to claim that the board doesn't need to vote on this at all (which is an equally laughable claim).

bayareabadboy 2y ago

This is the core issue. Unchecked executive overreach, by politicians of both parties at the federal and state level, will end terribly for the republic. But no one cares if it serves their political interests.

highcountess 2y ago
I argue that it has already ended poorly for the republic since the republic effectively no longer actually exists and what does exist is a fraudulent and inherently illegitimate government based on its own words and actions. The Constitution that created the federal republic is essentially an agreement, a form of contract. It has been violated to every degree and in every imaginable way possible that the only thing holding any of this together is that people still have not realize that they still trust in a lie. I get indications that there is possibly a kind of realization starting to work its way through the country, where people are starting to realize just that … that they’ve been had, defrauded, conned, lied to, deceived, stolen from, plundered, and abused. We shall see how deep the cracks go once an economic event stresses the foundation. I’m agnostic on which way it will go or if the crack will cause the foundation to crack catastrophically. I could make arguments either way.
ip26 2y ago
Possibly a natural consequence of gridlocked legislature or judiciary. If only the executive branch can get anything done, allowing overreach is the only way for government to continue functioning. That doesn't mean it's good, but suggests directions for solutions.
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  The legislature moving slowly is a feature; do you really want laws that can be permanent to be handled with wanton abandon? Especially if the electorate voting the legislature in is presumably divided on issues for debate? The executive can move quickly and has some special case exceptions to exercise them more broadly, namely justifiable emergencies, but their powers are supposed to be ephemeral at most owing to their speed. As for the judiciary, it's not their job to legislate in the first place so I'm not sure why you brought them up.
  - ip26 2y ago
    The legislature is supposed to move carefully, but it must still be able to actually legislate. US Congress, for example, is steadily passing fewer and fewer laws every year. If the current trend continues, fifty years from now Congress will enact zero new laws. That isn't being careful, that's paralyzed. https://www.reuters.com/graphics/USA-CONGRESS/PRODUCTIVITY/egpbabmkwvq/ https://www.reuters.com/graphics/USA-CONGRESS/PRODUCTIVITY/e... P.S. law is only permanent when the legislature is unable to enact new law to change or repeal it
    - Dalewyn 2y ago
      >[the legislature] must still be able to actually legislate No, it doesn't have to. Remember, the legislature is voted by the electorate, the voting public at large; the people of the city, county, state or country as applicable. If the legislature ends up so divided that passing laws with a supermajority to overrule executive vetos is impractical if not impossible, that suggests the people are divided and cannot come to a consensus on issues to be debated. Why should the legislature pass laws when the people can't come to an agreement? That's not democratic. If the people can't agree, neither should their representatives agree and it's the duty of the executive to veto such legislative overreach.

rulelawdead 2y ago

[flagged]

pudwallabee 2y ago

This has kind of always been the case hasnt it? The governor of the state has special powers over NYC. At least they have stepped in and bullied the city before, usually because the city is broke or has some crisis it needs the state to sort out with a pile of money. Personally, as a remote worker, it bugs me that she’s doing this to force people to go to work. So basically she wants the pollution and massive waste of resources if someone can sell a bunch of 15 dollar sandwiches and 10 dollar coffees at street level every day. In other words she wants to fleece employees either way. I feel for the business paying rent based on foot traffic in cities, however they know that if the foot traffic goes away, they can get out of their leases, since at least in malls etc the price per sq foot is based on foot traffic. But what I have zero interest in is this argument that I have to go to work so that I can be fleeced by businesses every time I walk down the street, so that they can stay in business. That is not my problem. Its pretty insulting given how much better for the environment and people’s personal lives it is to work remotely to treat us like a bunch of chickens going through a toll gate. Progressive companies that know the future have already let their leases go and gone full remote. More will follow. There will be no back to office.

woodruffw 2y ago
> This has kind of always been the case hasnt it? The governor of the state has special powers over NYC. At least they have stepped in and bullied the city before, usually because the city is broke or has some crisis it needs the state to sort out with a pile of money. To the best of my knowledge, the governor of New York absolutely does not have "special powers" over NYC. NYC's boroughs are normal municipalities for the purposes of state law. You might be thinking of the MTA, which was formed as an independent state corporation after the city's bankruptcy. This is a source of persistent local funding headaches, but is not a "special power": the MTA's board is intentionally not fully appointed by the governor, to prevent exactly this kind of unilateral maneuvering[1]. I don't really think this has anything to do with remote work or RTO, etc., either. Congestion pricing was a pre-COVID policy that's been on the table for well over a decade; it's sound policy purely in terms of making the MTA financially sustainable and reducing congestion and air and sound pollution within Manhattan. [1]: https://new.mta.info/transparency/leadership/board-members https://new.mta.info/transparency/leadership/board-members

loklgu7g 2y ago

[flagged]

DANmode 2y ago

The State government in New York has been run like a mafia family, (including premeditation and predestination of position appointment, legislation, policy shifts etc as the norm) for some time now. Please note: this can barely be considered a partisan comment.

roamerz 2y ago

>>far beyond her constitutional powers as the governor That’s because there are no penalties for violating the Oath of Office they take - the courts will simply override her decision at some point. If by chance they don’t she will simply reverse her decision - after the election. This is pure politics by a politician who cares only about herself and her party.

gessha 2y ago
Political parties are organizations fighting over political power. If they have local monopoly over power (which is the case in NY) they can do whatever they want without consequences. Multiparty systems should be a solution to this but often times fail because power concentrates in 2-3 parties in the short term.
- iknowstuff 2y ago
  It only concentrates like that in FPTP systems. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo
  - vlovich123 2y ago
    Or you end up with a bunch of minority parties and one that has managed to cobble together a larger coalition. Multi party systems aren’t the panacea FPTP critics make it out to be (and I dislike FPTP as well). The truth of the matter is that people aren’t as varied in their opinions as you think in practice in a representative democracy. The reason is that while any single issue may have a plurality of opinions, democracies generally install a decision maker for all policies so you end up voting for the party that represents you on the issues you care about or has the leadership you’d like to see, which significantly narrows down the sets of opinions.

bradleyjg 2y ago

The board has 14 members.* The governor appoints five and the county executives of Nassau, Suffolk, and Westchester each appoint one. Board members historically have been creatures of their appointees, exercising no independent judgment. The suburbs hate this congestion pricing plan. So, yes, technically the governor can’t do this. Practically, she can. * not really, one of the votes is split into four pieces, but effectively

afavour 2y ago
It’s not even as simple as that. 2009 Public Authorities Reform Act states that the MTA board is an independent body and should be making all decisions with the MTA's fiscal responsibility its primary concern. It’s going to be really, really difficult to justify an 11th hour reversal that will leave the MTA in a financial pit. It’ll almost certainly lead to legal action. But I agree, they’ll probably still do it.
- chimeracoder 2y ago
  > It’s not even as simple as that. 2009 Public Authorities Reform Act states that the MTA board is an independent body and should be making all decisions with the MTA's fiscal responsibility its primary concern. It’s going to be really, really difficult to justify an 11th hour reversal that will leave the MTA in a financial pit. It’ll almost certainly lead to legal action. They are legal fiduciaries, and they have been asked to vote to bankrupt the company for which they are fiduciaries. It's very difficult to find a way to square that circle legally, which is why Hochul has started to claim that the board doesn't need to vote on this at all (which is an equally laughable claim).