|
|
| Re: Yankees Parade = Staten Island Transit Disaster (854796) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Yankees Parade = Staten Island Transit Disaster |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Tue Nov 10 01:44:44 2009, in response to Re: Yankees Parade = Staten Island Transit Disaster, posted by Wado MP73 on Mon Nov 9 18:08:12 2009. My words from a previous message: "During the discussion on Staten Island separating itself from NYC during the early 1990's, there was the discredited suggestion that Staten Island could not make it on its own financially. That suggestion was disproved in major ways, but the myth of it shows up every now and then. Not that Staten Island should separate - it would not change much, except bring in a new cast of cronies."Quoted text from another message: "But the Staten Island tax base is not as large as is often assumed. Only 1.5 percent of New York City’s commercial taxes originate on Staten Island, according to the study conducted for the state commission by Berne, Netzer, and Stiefel. The NYU economists found that the cost of providing city services to Staten Island exceeds the revenues the borough generates by between $160 million and $180 million. This basic finding corroborates a study completed by the Mayor’s Office, which estimated the difference between expenses and revenues at $199 million. These analyses point to the surprising conclusion that separation of Staten Island from New York would actually provide budget relief for the city. That's what I hit on Google. The NYU report used to be online but I can't find it anymore." I want to respond that message. A few ideas to get out of the way: 1) I am not a proponent of Staten Island separating itself from New York City for several reasons: personal fortunes; my concerns about the whole city; and my unresolved thoughts about those who propose the idea now; and those in the past who proposed the idea. 2) I believe that a good part of this discussion comes under the heading "in theory", since there were many practical details to be worked out. In addition on a purely urban planning level the debate is fascinating in its novelty. 3) I believe that a close reading of the whole report that you provided supports the points that I made. It is true that the commercial sector of Staten Island as part of the tax paying base is small. Staten island is largely residential - but then so are many communities and small cities. a) The report that you provided showed that Staten Island while Staten Island is the city’s smallest borough, its population of 380,000 makes it as big as Miami or Pittsburgh. Staten Island's population has been growing since the report was written, as is the only borough in the city whose population that has continued to grow. b) As quoted from the article: "Even without tax increases, it may be possible for an independent Staten Island to be economically viable. The city currently receives $658.1 million in revenues from the island. Add its share of state and federal aid ($283.5 million) and debt service reserve funds ($13.8 million), and Staten Island has an existing revenue base of $955 million—by most standards a strong financial foundation for a city of fewer than 400,000 people." Staten Island's population now stands at an estimated 445,000, a 17% increase in population since 1990. c) A city of 400,000 with an existing revenue base of $955 million by most standards is a strong financial foundation for a city, as quoted and repeated. I believe that most folks would say that is "making it" which is what I had said earlier in the quoted section. d) The article then goes on to discuss the various kinds of separation of assets and monies, likening it to a divorce, a municipal divorce of a sort, where some things remained to be determined. Fair enough, for example how to pay for water, or provision for a city jail (although there is a correctional facility called Arther Kill on the island which seemed to be omitted). e) As quoted from the article: "Moreover, the architects of a new city would have an unprecedented opportunity to shape a local government that reflects their best thinking and highest aspirations. A City of Staten Island could end up with a far leaner government than the City of New York. On the other hand, Staten Islanders are accustomed to a certain level of service they have historically received from New York City, and most residents probably will want to see this maintained. Some essential services now provided by the city would be costly for Staten Island to deliver itself." There is an element of the details to be examined in the report, but the report has an air of "it is not impossible". f) Some of the debate that I alluded to was the idea, expressed at the time, that there was NO WAY ON THIS SIDE OF HADES that Staten Island could ever support itself with out the help of the other boroughs, and that is the viewpoint that has to rejected. Again, I agree that certain details would have to worked out, and specified but it is not impossible. g) Other reportes that I remember looking at - at the time said that finances might not be as difficult as reported. The quoted report did allude to the different sides of the debates and their dueling researches and their reports. There were questions about the balance of payments into and out of the island and the other boroughs. h) And I agree that there were a variety of stakeholders in the debate at the time, and that the subject has become moot over time. Thank you for finding this article. Mike |
|
(There are no responses to this message.)
|
|