« Bloomberg’s Reign of Neighborhood Destruction: Atlantic Yards as Poster Child | Main | Reaction to Governor Paterson's Refusal to Reign In Public Authorities »
August 15, 2009
Paterson Set to Reject Public Authority Overhaul
New York Times
Paterson Set to Reject Public Authority Overhaul
By Danny Hakim
The proposed Atlantic Yards project would require massive public subsidies, yet aspects of the project (i.e. what it will look like, what it will cost ), are being kept secret from the public by the tool of developer Bruce Ratner, the ESDC. Also, the MTA has agreed to sell the Vanderbilt rail yards to Bruce Ratner for less than their appraised value, and has even allowed a longer term for him to pay for the purchase.
Since New York Governor David Paterson seems to think that he can have political cover for supporting Atlantic Yards by allowing the ESDC and the MTA to abuse their power, it is disappointing, but not surprising, that he is about to veto legislation that would force public authorities to act more responsibly.
It is also not surprising that Atlantic Yards is not mentioned in this article produced by Bruce Ratner's business partner, the New York Times.
Gov. David A. Paterson is set to reject a sweeping overhaul of the state’s hundreds of public authorities that was passed by lawmakers last month but is opposed by the governor’s staff and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg of New York City.
...
If the governor were to veto the bill, or leave it in limbo, he would be turning aside the most ambitious attempt in decades to overhaul the system, which includes groups ranging from the Metropolitan Transportation Authority to the Niagara Falls Bridge Commission, and which has been criticized as functioning as a shadow government with little oversight.
...
The governor’s office objects to a number of provisions, including one that would require the comptroller to review authority contracts of over $1 million — a restriction that Mr. Paterson and business groups say will be too time-consuming. They also oppose a provision that would require authorities to record and disclose all contacts with lobbyists because it appears to encompass contacts with officials in other government agencies or authorities.
Supporters of the bill argue that the dispute is about power, and that the governor’s office and the mayor fear that the bill would diminish their sway over the authorities, which are ostensibly independent.
The legislation’s main provision would create an independent budget office with an array of powers over state authorities, including the ability to issue subpoenas in investigations and to conduct regular audits.
The legislation also makes clear that people who serve on authority boards have a fiduciary responsibility to the authorities and their missions rather than to the mayor, the governor or the elected officials who appointed them. Mr. Bloomberg is especially opposed to that provision.
The mayor also believes restrictions that would prevent authorities from selling off their land for below fair market value could hamper a number of developments, including a $700 million East Harlem project, which includes 600 housing units for low- and moderate-income families, and the East River Science Park, a $700 million complex in Manhattan that the city hopes will make it a leader in biotechnology.
...
The measure, adopted by the Senate in the wee hours near the end of its chaotic session last month, is one of the few actions to emerge from Albany this year that have been praised by editorial boards and civic groups. Many of the bill’s principles were drawn from a Pataki-era commission on authority reform led by Ira Millstein, a lawyer who is a leading expert on corporate governance.
The legislation has been promoted for years by Assemblyman Richard L. Brodsky, a Westchester Democrat who has investigated abuses at the transit authority and the Canal Corporation and, more recently, has scrutinized the financing of Yankee Stadium.
Mr. Brodsky said that Mr. Bloomberg’s concerns about property sales were a smoke screen because the city could easily award grants to developers instead of selling them land for below the market value.
“Their arguments are bogus,” he said. “It’s about power; it’s not about any particular projects.”
...
Senator Bill Perkins, a Harlem Democrat who was the chief sponsor of the bill in the Senate, said that taxpayers have too often been shortchanged in development deals.
“The whole purpose of this is to make sure that the public gets the best deal,” he said.
Posted by steve at August 15, 2009 8:07 AM