In an act of abject humility, Eric Schneiderman’s campaign people are saying that the NY Times endorsement of their candidate eliminates Eric Dinallo, Sean Coffey and Dick Brodsky from the AG’s race, narrowing the field to Schneiderman vs. Kathleen Rice. (If they were less humble, they could have said that the Times endorsement meant Senator Eric was a shoe-in.)

The truth of the matter is that it’s still anyone’s race. The NY Daily News (and Crain’s New York) endorsed Eric Dinallo and the fact that Sean Coffey has raised nearly as much money as Rice means those two cannot be counted out.

My guess is that Schneiderman is now pressuring Dick Brodsky to drop out and give him his endorsement. That could help more than the Times endorsement — particularly in Westchester County.

Whoever wins the primary will have to count on Andrew Cuomo’s coattails to win in November, given that the general public is not paying much attention at all to this race. (See early results of Empire Page poll for evidence.)

None of the candidates are well known throughout the state and the GOP’s candidate Dan Donovan should be able to paint Eric Schneiderman as a flaming leftist, making Schneiderman the weakest of the 5 contenders should he make it past the primary.

David Paterson is getting the best marks of his term in office since the honeymoon ended in the summer of 2008 for the role he played during the budget crisis (B+ in my book) and now for trying to resolve the NYC cultural center/mosque brouhaha. Even when he does good, however, he manages to look like he’s bumbling, which probably comes from a tendency to talk first and think second.

This weekend’s big story:

Rick Karlin of The Times Union picked up on two press releases issued late last week with bad news for New York’s citizenry. In the first the Division of the Budget reported on Friday that the projected budget gaps for 2011-12 and 2012-2013 have increased. On top of that the State Comptroller Tom DiNapoli announced he may reduce the projected rate of return of the state’s pension fund, meaning that localities will be hit with a bigger bill next year for their pension contributions.

Joe Spector of Gannett covered the same news.

Both writers point out the conflicting views offered by the governor’s office, which emphasizes his accomplishment in bringing home a “balanced” budget and those of critiques such as the Empire Center’s E.J. McMahon who keeps reiterating the points he made earlier in the month that things are actually getting worse.

Poll Question of the Week

Last week we wondered how our readers read the impact of the debate over building a Moslem cultural center/mosque within 500 feet of ground zero. 50 percent feel it will help those pols who oppose the center; 30 percent see no impact; only 17 percent think their opposition will hurt those candidates.

This week we’d like to know how closely you’re following the race to decide who will replace Andrew Cuomo as the Sheriff of Wall Street, State Street and Main Street? Vote today at www.empirepage.com.

Want a clearer understanding of the powers New York’s governor has in controlling spending? Then read E.J. McMahon’s piece “The Buck Stops Here” on City Journal’s website. McMahon explains the origins of New York’s budget process and explains how David Paterson paved new ground which the incoming governor can use to get a handle on New York’s runaway spending practices.

Joe Spector asks a very good question in his weekly legislative wrap up — Will this year’s state budget hold together> Spector says things might go better this year than they did in ’08 and ’09 when the Division of the Budget accurately forecast deficits within days those budgets had been signed into law. Robert Megna, the Division’s director, however, warns of cash flow problems and the national economy is not growing fast enough to cut into unemployment. New York can hardly be considered out of the woods.

The budget may be balanced, but is anyone pleased with how it was done? A tiny few. 75 percent of those who voted in last week’s poll question gave the governor and legislature an “F” grade for the 2010-11 budget. Only 9 percent gave it a passing grade of A, B or C. The rest gave them a “D”.

But it’s time to move on to the election season. The Empire Page hopes to complete interviews with another half a dozen or so candidates in the coming weeks. However, our poll question focuses on the NYC mosque issue.

We wonder how making the mosque a campaign issue will impact the chances of those Republicans — mainly Rick Lazio and Carl Paladino in their upcoming primary and in November? It seems to me that Republican candidates had enough solid issues to campaign on without making the mosque the focus of their efforts. There are a number of dangers inherent in doing so, including allowing the voters to take their mind off the economy and the way David Paterson and the Legislature have handled things these past couple of years.

I can understand why Rick Lazio jumped on the mosque issue. His campaign has not been going well at all. He’s not raising very much money, he’s in danger of losing the primary to Paladino and his poll numbers versus Andrew Cuomo are anemic. It seems like an act of desperation and probably will not help his campaign.

For Paladino the mosque question is more complex. He may be responding because he can’t afford to look soft on a populist issue when his opponent is harping on it day and night, but again he may be hurting himself in the long run by allowing Lazio to set the agenda. Paladino’s strength it seems to me is to stick to the tea party themes, presenting himself as the non-politician who will bring common sense goverment to the state capitol. That may not be enough to earn him a 4-year stay in Albany, but he could win the primary and keep Cuomo from drifting to the left on governance policy.

Do you think the mosque issue will help candidates gain support or will it hurt them? Vote on our home page this week.

It’s August which means it’s time for people in the news media to take vacations, visit Saratoga and/or bring a novel to work…right? Thank goodness not all of the reporters around the state have gone awol. Some good work is being done and it ought to be read and appreciated.

Let’s start by thanking NY Daily News for publishing “How public worker pensions are too rich for New York’s – and America’s – blood” by two professors from George Mason University. They provide a nice overview, but the problem is that the numbers are so large as to be incomprehensible, and because pension obligations are entered into by thousands of individual governmental entities, there’s no easy solution. The day is coming when some of those will not be able to meet their obligations. Then what? Another bailout is coming folks, even before we’ve paid for this one.

On Saturday, The Times Union‘s Rick Karlin reported state layoffs have not been taken off the table by the good news that the nation’s taxpayers will be sending New York another $805 million for Medicaid and $620 million for education and Joe Spector pointed out that despite the state’s dire fiscal condition, $12.5 million worth of member items were approved for payment by the Comptroller’s office. Those monies include $100,000 for an organization lobbying against those who want to run a major new power line through central New York.

Question: Since when does the state fund public interest organizations? IMHO that kind of pork violates one of the fundamental principles of democratic government, which is if an issue is important enough to enough people they will be able to raise sufficient resources to make their opinion heard. To interfere in this process is to make a mockery out of the concept of one man, one vote.

There Ought to be a Law: No public interest (lobbying) organization ought to be eligible to receive funds from any government agency for any purpose. You’ve seen what that brings with Acorn. Without regard to the merits of issue itself, the power-line group should not be applying for nor should they be given public monies.

Inmate Census Story

The other big story being covered by the media this weekend is the law passed this past week which will have a major impact on New York’s political infrastructure — namely, the fact that prison inmates will no longer be counted in the census as living in the county where they are incarcerated. This practice which mirrors the time when slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person when allocating members of the Congress allowed upstate New York to have more political clout than it deserved in relation to the actual number of the citizens who were eligible to vote.

Gannett‘s Joe Spector — Areas with prisons to lose clout in redistricting — and the Dunkirk Observer‘s Robert Rizzuto– Hurting Upstate: Census to count inmates in last community — provided excellent coverage of this issue.

I’m a big proponent of upstate New York and can catalog in dozens of ways that downstate interests do damage to the upstate communities like the one I grew up in (Gloversville in Fulton County) and where I currently own property and live part of the year (Hamilton County). However, to count prison inmates as part of a county’s population was wrong and it’s long past time when the practice should have been ended.

When redistricting takes place the political balance will shift even harder towards downstate. Thus, don’t look to the NYS Legislature for help addressing the long term economic decline of upstate New York. Upstate’s fate is now in the hands of its citizens — those who are not waiting for housing prices to rise or propitious business conditions to leave.

Poll Question Update

47 percent of our poll takers last week want the public to be able to buy cigarettes via the mail! Only 44 percent like the recent ruling against that practice and 9 percent have no opinion. Odd!

This week we’re asking you to grade the budget, but keep an eye on the home page, we’ll be changing the poll mid-week.

Justin Hudson, a recent graduate of Hunter College High School, told his fellow students at graduation last month that they didn’t deserve the benefits of having attended the elite high school. (NYTimes). “I feel guilty,” Hudson said.

The point of contention is the admissions exam that is used to select incoming students. Hudson said it was due to “luck and circumstance” that they did well on the exam and thereby received the educational advantages that attending Hunter provides. Most of the faculty apparently believe that the ability to pass the 7th grade admissions exam is largely a reflection of the schools the students have attended to that point and that because better schools are located in middle-class neighborhoods, the students are undeserving in comparison to students who are attending poorer schools. They’ve passed that viewpoint on to some of the students – half of whom gave Hudson a standing ovation at the end of his speech.

This year’s enrollment numbers at Hunter are instructive. 47 of the incoming students were Asian, 41 percent white, 8 percent multiracial, 3 percent black and 1 percent Hispanic. In 1995 the numbers for black and Hispanic were 12 percent and 6 percent respectively. The figure for whites was not given. It seems as if Asian children are taking the place of blacks, Hispanics and undoubtedly whites as well. That fact seems to belie the argument that problem lies in the neighborhoods where the students receive their elementary education.

Being labeled gifted as defined by the Hunter College High School admissions exam lines up with the characteristics of many Asian Americans. They are able to master the skill sets favored by schooling and they have a higher level of educational ambition than do most whites, blacks and Hispanics.

It appears as if the administration at Hunter College is not open to changing the admissions criteria in a way that would change the mix of students at its High School. That would be my recommendation as well. It sends a clear message to the parents of children who aspire to take advantage of what Hunter offers. Your child will truly have to be gifted educationally to get in.

In response to those who say that truly gifted children who are attending poor schools are thus disadvantaged, I would demand proof. It has always been my experience that truly gifted children overcome such disadvantages with the help of parents and teachers who recognize and reward talent by providing whatever resources are required – a library card, extra assignments, etc.

My message to Mr. Hudson is that it is good that you recognize that you feel guilty. However, you’ve drawn the wrong conclusions from that emotion. Instead of feeling unworthy, you ought to take advantage of the fact that you truly are gifted. That doesn’t mean you are a better human being or get two votes on election day. It means that you now have an obligation to those who are not so fortunate to do something with your gift. Make a contribution to the world that rewards your parents, your teachers and others who saw your gift and nurtured it. The wrong thing to do is deny another gifted child that opportunity by giving her seat away to someone who is less talented.

"Criminal Charges Possible." That's the sub-head to a press release issued today over readMedia's Newswire (releases from readMedia are available to subscribers of the Empire Page) from the NYS Inspector General's office disclosing the results of an investigation of spending habits of the former director of the New York State Fair.

What they found was that from 1995 to 2005 Peter Cappuccilli, Jr. "diverted" $78,000 of state monies for personal use and "squandered" $870,000 of state money "on lavish parties, holiday cards and two daughters' weddings." I suppose that was "impersonal" use.

The point is that once again we find NYS years late in uncovering what had to have been obvious at the time and more than a dollar short.

But to rub salt into the taxpayer's wounds, the Inspector General isn't certain whether to persue criminal charges.

Here's what I would say to THE inspector general -- Joseph Fisch -- whose name is never refered to in the press release if I were the governor of NYS: "Mr. Fisch. NYS is going to press criminal charges in this matter today. It's either going to be against you or Mr. Cappucilli. Your choice."

But let me repeat myself because I want anyone who disagrees with me to tell me why.  Isn't the real crime here is that Mr. Cappuccilli's behavior begain 15 years ago and NYS waited until he retired -- on some huge state pension no doubt -- before they figured out the guy was crooked?

Because it took so long, very little of this money will be recovered, New York will have spent tens of thousands before it's over investigation and hopefully prosecuting the man and the fact that this guy was allowed to get away with this kind of activity only promotes a culture within NY that such things as hiring 40 relatives of your employees in your private ventures is okay with us.

What's the solution? Privatize the state fair. Let me repeat that for those who like to skim. PRIVATIZE THE STATE FAIR.

Let companies bid on running it. They pay NYS for the contract. There are no NYS emloyees involved, no pension obligations, minimal liabilities, etc. Then if the owner of the company who gets the bid wants to divert money from his company to his personal use, NYS taxpayers will not be the ones suffering from sore backsides.

'nuf said.

New York is not the only state in fiscal crisis. You may have read about California’s problems, but did you know that the at least half of the 50 states are facing a 2011 fiscal year shortfall which adds up to $83.9 billion according to the Conference of State Legislatures? Plus, shortfalls are projected to continue through 2013 driven in part by reduction in federal medicaid payments.

The size of the deficits is astonishing in some cases with 7 states facing shortfalls in excess of 20% of their spending estimate, topped by Nevada’s 45% shortfall. As of July 1 New York was one of 9 states with a late 2010 budget.

While many states have cut expenditures, some people continue to view this is a short-term problem, one that will evaporate when the Obama stimulus finally kicks in and businesses start to hire and consumers start to spend. The problem with that scenario is that it’s more fantastic than a Walt Disney feature.

The facts are that the Obama stimulus may have prevented some private sector jobs from disappearing, but most of the money went to public sector projects like road repairs which are short-term in their impact.

Second the rest of the Obama agenda is crushing not stimulating the economy which means that businesses are not going to hire and consumer spending will not solve the problem with close to 20% of the working age population unemployed or underemployed.

In New York we are facing a structural crisis that will not be solved by a return to normality. We have allowed the public sector to grow out of control fueling long-term pension obligations that are crushing local and state government. As a result we are driving businesses and middle class people out of the state which won’t be made up for by the arrival of one chip fab plant. (The people of the Capital District who put all their eggs in that basket should have known better. All they had to do was drive past the empty GE complex to see what happens to one-company towns.)

Looking Ahead

The inevitable conflict between the public employee unions and Andrew Cuomo will be interesting to watch. In order to bring the cost of government under control, Cuomo will have to make changes that PEF, CSEA & SEIU will not be happy about. Stay tuned.

The best reporting on NYS government these days is being turned in by Gannett News Service’s Albany Bureau. This week-end’s output is an example of why you have to read what Joe Spector and his crew produce on a regular basis if you claim to be on top of NYS political and government news.

Saturday, Bureau Chief Joe Spector led off with In state budgets, some revenue projections miss their mark a timely review of how the governor and Legislature often pass “balanced” budgets using highly optimistic revenue predictions. Could be that our leaders pluck numbers out of thin air in order to meet the revenue projections? I’m shocked!

Meanwhile Cara Mathews provided an overview on how the state is processing applications for new charter schools in State encourages new charter schools.

Spector followed up his budget story today with New York’s taxes out of control: Law calls for dissolving first, study later. This is yet another Gannett piece on the government consolidation issue. Spector reviews the impact of the law making it easier for local governments to consolidate that was pushed through the legislature earlier this year by man who is likely to be installed as New York’s 56th governor in January 2011.

The new law has increased consolidation activity where in the past the procedure was so cumbersome that only one entity dissolved between 1995 and 2009. Of course, activity has also increased resistance by groups such as the Association of Towns which claims that smaller government entities are more efficient. If smaller government is more efficient, why don’t we divide every county, village and town in half?

Gannett Reporter Joe Campbell contributed another important story this weekend with Special districts: Fair taxation or unnecessary burden?, an analysis of another major problem facing New York taxpayers — the fact that there are almost 7,000 districts across the state that have the authority to tax the public.

If you don’t subscribe to the Empire Page, it’s hard to follow the Gannett Albany bureau’s output because the state’s Gannett papers don’t publish every story — even on their websites. The Empire Page, however, posts these stories under the Gannett News Service.

Poll Question of the Week

Last week we asked people whether they support state takeover of the administration of Medicaid. Only 54% voted in favor, 37% say they are opposed and a large 9% have no opinion. This reform has been on the table for some time and it is clear that advocates of state takeover have not done a good job educating the state’s opinion makers about the advantages of their concept. Given that state takeover would help relieve local government and make it easier to reduce the amount of fraud in the system, it’s a wonder that more reform organizations have not gone to bat for this idea.

This weekend the national press produced several stories on Congressman Charles Rangel’s ethics problems. You’ll find links to stories in the Washington Post & all of the NYC papers on Saturday and Sunday’s NYS Headlines pages. For our poll question of the week, we’re asking if you think Rangel will be re-elected? He’s facing a primary battle which if he loses could lead to his running on a third party line in November.

Did you see this press release issued by the State Comptroller yesterday? Here’s the headline: $378,000 IN TOWN OF FAIRFIELD FUNDS MISAPPROPRIATED ON UNAUTHORIZED CHECKS PAYABLE TO THE FORMER SUPERVISOR AND HIS WIFE

Here’s the story. The former supervisor and his wife of the Town of Fairfield wrote nearly 350 checks to themselves totalling $378,000 over a 5-year period. Yes, the Comptroller caught up with them, but that’s not the point. This never should have or could have happened were it not for the fact that Fairfield is one of hundreds of towns across NYS that are too small to operate efficiently. (I’ll send anyone $1 to anyone who knows what County the Town of Fairfield is in without having to look it up.)

What’s the solution? Consolidate the state’s 932 towns into one-quarter or one-third of that number and what would you get? For one: enough tax revenue to afford modern information managment and bookkeeping systems that would prevent the all too frequent cases of fraud and abuse. You’d save on equipment and overhead costs, reducing the number of administrative buildings and staff required to govern. The extra monies could go back to the taxpayers or be used to meet real human needs.

Let’s see. Keep 932 towns so that we can keep town officials fat and happy or reduce the number of towns so that we can provide the services we’re supposed to be providing. All in favor of keeping the current number? Opposed?

The sad part of this story is that town officials belong to an association — The Association of Towns of the State of New York — whose mission is “to help obtain greater economy and efficiency”. However, this association has failed to come to terms with the FACT that the ONLY WAY their mission can be accomplished is by DRASTICALLY reducing the number of towns in NYS. They keep holding on to an out-dated world view that no longer exists and cannot be sustained.

But that’s the trouble with associations in general. Like our state legislators, association staffers are short-term occupants who find it more comfortable to defend the status quo rather than look to the needs of the future. That may work for a while, but eventually reality catches up to people. That’s when the legislator decides it’s time to get an appointment to some commission and when the association manager retires to Florida where there’s no income tax on his fat association pension.

Here’s a challenge. Prove me wrong folks! I’ll donate $100 to any association that can prove to me that they’ve come to terms with the reality that NYS cannot sustain the current number of towns, villages, cities and even counties and are working against their own short-term interest on behalf of the future of New York. I’ll print your story along with a picture of me delivering my check to your association, but I’m not holding my breath.

The weather has been sweltering on the East Coast and that hasn’t made it any easier for the state’s politicians to concentrate on the job at hand — passing a balanced budget. They had better start paying attention soon because November’s cold winds may sweep incumbents out of both Albany and Washington.

The hint of redistricting is in the air. Check out two pieces this weekend in the Washington Post: on Saturday the column — “Opening the curtain on redistricting” — by Michael McDonald, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and Micah Altman, a senior research scientist at Harvard, and on Sunday, the analysis piece by Dan Balz — “Long-term structural changes start at state level.” As I’ve stated all year, the battle for the NYS Senate is the most important electoral contest going on in NYS because whomever ends up in control will determine the district lines for Congressional and Legislative seats through 2020!

Poll Questions: Budgets and Taxes

We asked you whose budget plan you liked the best — the Governor’s or the Legislature’s and you said neither. More than 50 percent of those who voted rejected both plans while the Legislature’s budget proposal garnered just 14 percent of the vote to 31 percent who like Gov. Paterson’s budget.

This week we’re asking you about the Sugar Tax: the 18% tax on soda and other sugary drinks containing less than 70% fruit juice proposed by Governor Paterson and supported by Mayor Bloomberg. Alan Chartock likes it. Do you? Vote today on the home page.

This past week Governor David Paterson proposed as part of his budget extender an overhaul of the state university system that would allow individual campuses to set their own tuition rates. We’ve asked our Empire Page visitors and subscribers in our poll question of the week how they view the proposal which Legislative leaders and the higher ed teachers union have both rejected.

Edward Herman, chairman of the United University Professions Advocacy Committee at the University at Buffalo, argued in a letter to the editor of the Buffalo News that Paterson’s proposal “is contrary to the state university’s mission.” Herman claims that it “will not offer quality education for all segments of the population, and tuition will become more unaffordable for the low-income populace.” He also states that the proposal is contrary to the system’s strategic plan that the 64 campuses “work as an integrated system”.

I always find it disconcerting when a proposal like this is rejected out of hand in a matter of hours from its presentation. If UUP wants to oppose the plan, that’s their right, but perhaps they should have taken a little longer to consider it more thoroughly and to come up with arguments that hold water.

Let’s dismiss the second argument first. How giving local campuses the ability to set their own tuition rates would interfere with SUNY functioning as an “integrated system” is not clear. The system is made up of a variety of institutions — two year, four year and those specializing in unique curicculae (medical, forestry, etc.). Tuition already varies according to these factors. Why shouldn’t it also vary according to other factors, such as the quality of the education offered as measured by the grade-point average and test result scores of the applicants and the number of students applying to each campus?

For example, campuses that are not currently attracting as high a quality of student as they would like or a sufficient number to be more selective, could lower their tuition in hopes of making their campuses more desirable. Also, campuses which currently are in most demand could reduce that demand by increasing tuition, discouraging some students and families who are unwilling to pay the difference between attending that school and another one — either in the SUNY system or elsewhere.

How would such steps impact low income students and the quality of education being offered? In terms of low income students, these students do not pay out of pocket to attend college. If they have the academic credentials, the full weight of their attending college is paid for by the public. Variable pricing should have no impact on low income students abilty to attend a SUNY school.

Variable pricing is more likely to impact upper-middle-income families — those whose children do not qualify for financial aid or scholarships. Those families will be forced to evaluate their choices more carefully and decide how important it is to attend a school whose tuition is $2000 (to pick a number out of the air) more a year than another institution.

What about the quality of education being offered? What factors impact quality? One is the quality of the faculty that a school can attract. If a school increases tuition one presumes it would use the additional funds in threeeways — to increase the amount of financial aid it can offer low income students, to attract a better quality faculty and to improve the plant (buildings and grounds). Quality of education should thus be improved.

What about a school that has to lower tuition in order to increase the number of quality students that it is able to attract? Presumably it will succeed and as a result will find more of the students it accepts deciding to attend and thus increasing tuition income which can be spent on financial aid, upgrading faculty and upgrading buildings and grounds. Quality will increase.

How does this fit into the world where NYS cannot afford to support higher education in the manner to which it has done in the past? The SUNY system must continue the steps that have been taken to move from total dependence on taxpayers to operating more like private institutions. SUNY management must learn how to read balance sheets — i.e., to balance how much it spends against how much it brings in and not always count on the taxpayer to make up the difference.

Which would people prefer — budget cuts that eliminate entire campuses and programs or variable pricing that forces individual campuses to operate like other people in the real world are forced to operate? My vote is with the later.

Comptroller DiNapoli put an end to the discussion about borrowing from the state pension funds to solve the budget crisis — a decision supported wholeheartedly by Empire Page readers 86 percent of whom voted against the concept versus 12 percent who supported the idea so we closed that poll and started a new one.

The issue of microstamping as a means of identifying a weapon used in a crime has gotten a lot of discussion this past week. Mayor Bloomberg and other government officials lobbied hard in Albany for passage of legislation that would have required gun manufacturers to microstamp a number on the firing pin of every gun so that police could identify the weapon by examining the shell cartridge. Opponents include the gun manufacturers who don’t want the added cost and gun owners who are suspicious of the motives of those who support the measure. The bill in the NYS Senate was withdrawn in the middle of a floor vote this past week, but may come up again in the future. So what do you think — should this technology be used to help catch people who use guns in crimes? Vote at www.empirepage.com.

If last week’s Empire Page poll question voters are typical of the state’s enrolled Democrats, Sean Coffey will capture the Democratic nomination for Attorney General in September. However, we suspect Coffey supporters got wind of our poll and were able to generate more votes than he would in a poll of random voters. Coffey pulled in 45% of our poll numbers, beating out Kathleen Rice (22%), Richard Brodsky (16%), Eric Schneiderman (10%) and Eric Dinallo (7%).

We would like to know our readers’ views of what will happen tomorrow when the Legislature must pass a budget extender to prevent the state from shuting down, but since that would only give our readers 24 hours to chime in, we’re asking you another longer-range question: Do you support Gov. Paterson’s idea of allowing the state as well as municipalities to borrow from their pension funds? Vote on the home page now.

Today’s News

The news today as gathered by the editors of the Empire Page focused on many local issues along with the impending budget crisis. Bruce Dearstyne wrote a nice panegyric to the state parks system in the Times Union, but he doesn’t offer solutions to the fact that the parks are running up huge deficits.

We’ve previously offered our solutions:

1) Close those parks where attendance in so low as to foreclose the possibility that the park will ever bring in sufficient revenues to meet the cost of keeping it open, or sell them to the counties in which they are located. Counties very likely will be able to operate their parks more economically than the state does and they would work harder to involve the local community, thus increasing use and revenues.

2) Upgrade congestion pricing to allow people to bid online on the most popular spots, thus increasing revenue.

3) Offer to sell some parks to private enterprises that would be willing to run them according to a set of standards that would preserve their contribution to the public. There may be no buyers, but the state needs to find out.

4) Consolidate park administration and implement private sector management technology to reduce the number of FTE’s required in run the system.

We all love the park system, but it’s not fair to taxpayers that user fees only bring in 25% of the cost required to keep the system as it is today. We need a smaller system with users bringing in 50% or more of operating costs. I believe that could be done in a three to five year period with proper leadership!

Rand Paul set off a controversy with his comments regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Now that Libertarian Party candiate for NYS Governor Warren Redlich has jumped in, it has become a NYS story.

Redlich is quoted in a City Hall piece by David Freedlander as having said in defense of his position that the Federal Government should not have included private businesses in its desegretation efforts that state and local governments should have dealt with the segregation question before the federal government stepped in.

But that’s just the point as anyone who knows the history of that period understands. State and local governments in the Old South were enforcing racial segregation. They were denying descendents of American slavery the right to register to vote and to vote. State and local governments were denying African Americans the right to attend publicly supported educational institutions, requiring them to attend special black-only schools and colleges. They were denying people “equal protection of the laws” by using public employees — state and local police officers — to keep blacks out of “white only” restrooms or from drinking from “white only” water fountains…and from being served at lunch counters in the local 5 and 10 cent store…and from obtaining employment solely due to the color of their skin.

We’ve all heard people say that “you can’t legislate morality”. However, the 14th amendment was not trying to change what people think or believe — just their behaviors when those behaviors denied rights due to all citizens.

Redlich is quoted as having said “The federal government can’t solve every problem”. But again Redlich is missing the point. The Federal Government must step in when a local government either fails to act to protect the rights of citizens or actively contributes to the denial of those rights.

In terms of private business, the power of the Federal Government to require equal protection by private businesses comes under Article 1, Section 8 — the interstate commerce clause which says “[The Congress shall have power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes.” While people still argue about the interpretation of this clause, it is now accepted as justifying intervention when a private business denies employment, or in the case of the 5 and dime lunch counter, service to someone “on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.”

Redlich and Paul should do a little reading about the Civil Rights Movement. Perhaps if they understood how different our country was half a century ago, they wouldn’t make comments that get them in hot water and undermine their credibility as candidates for public office.