One of the recurring topics at Monday's budget hearing was the allocation of Aid and Incentives to Municipalities (AIM) funding, which was cut by two percent to all municipalities, except in New York City, which lost all of its money.
Mayor Bloomberg, Comptroller Liu and member of the New York City Council all struck the same note about the AIM money. They said that after being cut from last year's budget, politicians in the city had been promised that the funds would be restored for the 2011-2012 fiscal year.
In his unveiling of the budget, Gov. Andrew Cuomo's position on this money was that the city wasn't entitled to it and that he wasn't cutting their budget because it had been previously withheld. He also noted that the city had many other sources of revenue so they would be able to absorb the hit.
This idea was reiterated by Democratic Member James Brennan, who argued that the city shouldn't have expected this money because of how bad the state's fiscal crisis was. He essentially argued that people shouldn't trust the state when things get tough, because when the goings get tough, the state basically writes checks it can't check.
NYC Council Speaker Christine Quinn said the city had to plan on getting the money, or then the state would have had no reason to even consider giving them their funds. "WE would have been chumps not to put it in," said Quinn. She went on to say that the AIM cut was just another example of the state's inequitable treatment of a city that it has taken for granted.
To this point, Quinn warned that it could get worse for the city when the Medicaid Task Force finally reports, because they could disproportionately hurt the city. She said people were talking to the taskforce on behalf of NYC, but revealed that they had no stakeholders for HHC hospitals in the room. "Unfortunately they do not have a seat at the table," she lamented.
Former Finance Chair Carl Kruger expressed his apologies for his failure to deliver on the promise he made while in the majority. "It was our intention for this to be a one-year cut," he said. "That commitment is not being honored...It is being totally ignored."
Monday, February 7, 2011
Bloomberg on the Budget
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg came to Albany on Monday to testify about the governor's proposed budget, which he suggested represented a valiant effort by Cuomo to tackle the state's problems.
"These times require fiscal discipline,” said Bloomberg, who noted that he strongly supported large portions of the budget, like the wage freeze, merging of 11 agencies, consolidation of prison beds and closing of juvenile justice facilities. He acknowledged that cuts to the city are inevitable and promised to carry their portion of the pain.
This did not mean that he was happy about a repeated elimination of AIM funding, which they had been told they’d receive in November of 2010. He explained that these promises are very important, as his city budgets years in advance and assumes the state will honor its pledges.
He said the city was promised a restoration of the funds for this upcoming fiscal year. “Our citizens won’t let this become the new norm,” he warned. We’re responsible for 50 percent of the state’s funds, said Bloomberg, who noted that revenue sharing gives his city flexibility and announced that they wanted equitable treatment. He said, “We shouldn’t be punished for our frugality.”
“This year more than ever we need your help,” posed Bloomberg to the committee. He said they were facing the prospect of heavy layoffs, especially to the schools. While acknowledging that layoffs were inevitable, the mayor said it was important that they could break from the "last hired, first fired" model, so that bad teachers would be shown the door instead of young ones.
Regarding the building aid formula, the mayor said it would be very painful and could contradict court rulings on class sizes. On the juvenile justice system he said the closing of certain facilities was a good first step, but argued that shifting the savings back into the failed system was a mistake and urged the committee to give the city control of their own program. Concerning the future of Medicaid, Bloomberg endorsed cutting administrative costs and cautioned against cutting services.
Bloomberg espoused his budgeting philosophy, which is that it is first essential to determine what society needs and then figure out how to pay for it. He suggested that to preserve the economic engine of the state, which is the city of New York, it needs money and the removal of antiquated mandates.
“We have alternative ways,” he said. “It’s not having our cake and eating it too.”
"These times require fiscal discipline,” said Bloomberg, who noted that he strongly supported large portions of the budget, like the wage freeze, merging of 11 agencies, consolidation of prison beds and closing of juvenile justice facilities. He acknowledged that cuts to the city are inevitable and promised to carry their portion of the pain.
This did not mean that he was happy about a repeated elimination of AIM funding, which they had been told they’d receive in November of 2010. He explained that these promises are very important, as his city budgets years in advance and assumes the state will honor its pledges.
He said the city was promised a restoration of the funds for this upcoming fiscal year. “Our citizens won’t let this become the new norm,” he warned. We’re responsible for 50 percent of the state’s funds, said Bloomberg, who noted that revenue sharing gives his city flexibility and announced that they wanted equitable treatment. He said, “We shouldn’t be punished for our frugality.”
“This year more than ever we need your help,” posed Bloomberg to the committee. He said they were facing the prospect of heavy layoffs, especially to the schools. While acknowledging that layoffs were inevitable, the mayor said it was important that they could break from the "last hired, first fired" model, so that bad teachers would be shown the door instead of young ones.
Regarding the building aid formula, the mayor said it would be very painful and could contradict court rulings on class sizes. On the juvenile justice system he said the closing of certain facilities was a good first step, but argued that shifting the savings back into the failed system was a mistake and urged the committee to give the city control of their own program. Concerning the future of Medicaid, Bloomberg endorsed cutting administrative costs and cautioned against cutting services.
Bloomberg espoused his budgeting philosophy, which is that it is first essential to determine what society needs and then figure out how to pay for it. He suggested that to preserve the economic engine of the state, which is the city of New York, it needs money and the removal of antiquated mandates.
“We have alternative ways,” he said. “It’s not having our cake and eating it too.”
Saturday, February 5, 2011
Got Your # On My Wall
The Republican controlled Senate appears determined to pass legislation that would make it illegal for a person to alter their caller identification with the intent to defraud or harass the recipient of a call.
Republican Sen. Lee Zeldin introduced the bill (SB 2909) on Thursday, and unlike thousands of other bills in the chamber, it has already been scheduled for a committee meeting. On Tuesday the Senate Consumer Protection Committee will address the bill, which was introduced in the senate last year and never was put on a committee agenda.
An Assembly version (AB 52) from Amy Paulin, D-Scarsdale, has already moved through the Assembly Consumer Affairs and Protection committee and is likely to cruise through the chamber, where it has previously been passed.
The bill seems like an intrusion that Republicans would never want to get involved in, as it limits personal freedom, but apparently they're opposed to "spoofing."
What's "spoofing" you ask? Well in the bill's justification, it is described this way:
The bill alleges that telemarketers use this technique to encourage people to pick up the phone, as they're more likely to pick up when a call is identified as a local number.
But it's not only the recipients of calls who are harmed as people whose numbers are misrepresented could become the recipient of angry phone calls at any hour of the day from people who have received calls that seemingly were placed by the person being spoofed, but were actually placed by someone else.
Kind of hard to imagine who opposed this bill in the past. Big Stalker?
Republican Sen. Lee Zeldin introduced the bill (SB 2909) on Thursday, and unlike thousands of other bills in the chamber, it has already been scheduled for a committee meeting. On Tuesday the Senate Consumer Protection Committee will address the bill, which was introduced in the senate last year and never was put on a committee agenda.
An Assembly version (AB 52) from Amy Paulin, D-Scarsdale, has already moved through the Assembly Consumer Affairs and Protection committee and is likely to cruise through the chamber, where it has previously been passed.
The bill seems like an intrusion that Republicans would never want to get involved in, as it limits personal freedom, but apparently they're opposed to "spoofing."
What's "spoofing" you ask? Well in the bill's justification, it is described this way:
Spoofing occurs when a person intentionally alters caller identification information to mask the true identity of the caller. The minimum effect is that the end user is deceived - the person making the call is not the person identified on the screen -and the person identified on the screen is "spoofed." This means that the person being spoofed has had caller identification information - his identity, in essence - intentionally misappropriated by the caller to achieve an end.
The bill alleges that telemarketers use this technique to encourage people to pick up the phone, as they're more likely to pick up when a call is identified as a local number.
But it's not only the recipients of calls who are harmed as people whose numbers are misrepresented could become the recipient of angry phone calls at any hour of the day from people who have received calls that seemingly were placed by the person being spoofed, but were actually placed by someone else.
Kind of hard to imagine who opposed this bill in the past. Big Stalker?
Anti-Snooki Bill
Senator Charles Fuschillo, R-Massapequa, apparently wants to kill the dreams of girls under the age of 18 that want to emulate Jersey Shore star Snooki.
Fuschillo has introduced a bill (SB 2917) that would ban people under the age of 18 from using a tanning facility.
What's amusing about this is that Assemblyman Harvey Weisenberg, D-Long Beach, has introduced a companion bit of legislation (AB 1074), as he has previously done. It is ironic that Weisenberg would be responsible for the Assembly's version because he looks like he has spent half his life tanning or at the very least has stood next to Speaker of the House John Boehner for an extended period of time.
The proposal has moved from the health committee to the codes committee in the Assembly, with the bill in the Senate getting a referral to its health committee on Thursday.
Currently, people over the age of 14 are allowed to live the orange dream. Luckily, though, they still have a defender in Republican Senator Stephen Saland, who previously opposed this bill on the basis that it would intrude on traditional parental duties.
This proposal has never gained much traction in the past and it is unlikely now that the Legislature will be able to overcome the strength of Big Tanning.
Fuschillo has introduced a bill (SB 2917) that would ban people under the age of 18 from using a tanning facility.
What's amusing about this is that Assemblyman Harvey Weisenberg, D-Long Beach, has introduced a companion bit of legislation (AB 1074), as he has previously done. It is ironic that Weisenberg would be responsible for the Assembly's version because he looks like he has spent half his life tanning or at the very least has stood next to Speaker of the House John Boehner for an extended period of time.
The proposal has moved from the health committee to the codes committee in the Assembly, with the bill in the Senate getting a referral to its health committee on Thursday.
Currently, people over the age of 14 are allowed to live the orange dream. Luckily, though, they still have a defender in Republican Senator Stephen Saland, who previously opposed this bill on the basis that it would intrude on traditional parental duties.
This proposal has never gained much traction in the past and it is unlikely now that the Legislature will be able to overcome the strength of Big Tanning.
Big Radar Strikes Again
On Monday afternoon the Senate is likely to bring up and pass a proposal from the Godfather, Republican Sen. Carl Marcellino, which would outlaw the use of any device that would block or jam, by either mechanical or electrical means any radar or laser device used by a police officer to monitor vehicular speed.
On its face this proposal seems to make sense, as it is a nuisance, but a potentially life saving one. It feels like an idea on par with speed cameras that are impossible to get around.
Unfortunately, the bill is flawed and slightly corrupt, as was addressed in a recent Senate Committee on Transportation. In that meeting from the middle of January, the often eccentric dresser Democratic Sen. Bill Perkins noted that the bill doesn't target the people who sell these devices to unlawful users. The Committee Chairman, Sen. Charles Fuschillo, said that this topic was beyond the scope of the legislation.
(This divide makes sense if you embrace the idea that Republicans want to foster a good business environment while being all law and order and that Democrats want to protect you with a nanny state.)
Anyway, Senator Reuben Diaz, D-Crazytown, argued that the committee was protecting the rights of big business at the expense of the little people. He was then encouraged by the chair to address his own legislation (that will be blocked by the Republican majority because it isn't business friendly).
Side note: A committee staffer suggested that the radar devices banned only includes those that are plugged into a power source, which leaves open the possibility that radar devices that run on batteries or independent rage would be legal.
On its face this proposal seems to make sense, as it is a nuisance, but a potentially life saving one. It feels like an idea on par with speed cameras that are impossible to get around.
Unfortunately, the bill is flawed and slightly corrupt, as was addressed in a recent Senate Committee on Transportation. In that meeting from the middle of January, the often eccentric dresser Democratic Sen. Bill Perkins noted that the bill doesn't target the people who sell these devices to unlawful users. The Committee Chairman, Sen. Charles Fuschillo, said that this topic was beyond the scope of the legislation.
(This divide makes sense if you embrace the idea that Republicans want to foster a good business environment while being all law and order and that Democrats want to protect you with a nanny state.)
Anyway, Senator Reuben Diaz, D-Crazytown, argued that the committee was protecting the rights of big business at the expense of the little people. He was then encouraged by the chair to address his own legislation (that will be blocked by the Republican majority because it isn't business friendly).
Side note: A committee staffer suggested that the radar devices banned only includes those that are plugged into a power source, which leaves open the possibility that radar devices that run on batteries or independent rage would be legal.
Picking the President
On Monday afternoon when the Assembly comes back into session they're likely to move a bill that will alter how the state awards its electoral votes for the presidential election.
Assemblyman Jeff Dinowitz, D-Bronx, has introduced legislation (AB 489) that is basically an interstate agreement between willing states to award their electoral votes to whoever wins the majority of the national vote.
New York's ability to make this change stems from the fact that the Constitution allows each state to determine how it will award its electoral votes. Because of this loop hole, states can circumvent the electoral college system without actually amending the Constitution, which is a cumbersome process.
Dinowitz's proposal argues that the current system is inadequate, as it encourages candidates to focus on battleground states and fosters a dynamic where one state can be the difference. To these points the bill argues:
The legislation wouldn't go into effect until after enough states had committed to the proposal that the new coalition amassed 270 votes, and could therefore guarantee the selection of the presidency.
This idea passed the senate in the recent session, but has always stalled in the Assembly. Most likely this aversion in the Assembly, where the bill hasn't even gotten a vote, stems from the fact that the liberal base there doesn't want to risk awarding New York's electoral votes to a Republican.
Assemblyman Jeff Dinowitz, D-Bronx, has introduced legislation (AB 489) that is basically an interstate agreement between willing states to award their electoral votes to whoever wins the majority of the national vote.
New York's ability to make this change stems from the fact that the Constitution allows each state to determine how it will award its electoral votes. Because of this loop hole, states can circumvent the electoral college system without actually amending the Constitution, which is a cumbersome process.
Dinowitz's proposal argues that the current system is inadequate, as it encourages candidates to focus on battleground states and fosters a dynamic where one state can be the difference. To these points the bill argues:
This interstate agreement would send a clear message to Presidential
candidates that no citizens' vote can be expected based upon party
affiliation alone. An office that is representing all 50 states should
be filled by a candidate who campaigned in all 50 states to gain the
knowledge and support of all citizens.
The legislation wouldn't go into effect until after enough states had committed to the proposal that the new coalition amassed 270 votes, and could therefore guarantee the selection of the presidency.
This idea passed the senate in the recent session, but has always stalled in the Assembly. Most likely this aversion in the Assembly, where the bill hasn't even gotten a vote, stems from the fact that the liberal base there doesn't want to risk awarding New York's electoral votes to a Republican.
Friday, February 4, 2011
Racing Surcharge Quacks like a Tax
"If it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, then in New York it's probably a tax," said Assemblyman Jim Tedisco, R-Glenville, regarding a racing purse surcharge that was proposed in Gov. Andrew Cuomo's budget on Monday.
Downplayed as a fee by the governor, Tedisco took serious umbrage with the surcharge, which he characterized as a tax.
He said that the state should be encouraging people to get involved in racing at this point, while this fee will have the opposite effect.
The surcharge in question is a 2.75 percent surcharge on purses for all horse races conducted within the state. The money is designed to eliminate the deficit being run by the Regulation of Racing account. The idea of the proposal is that that account, which is part of the Racing Board, will now be funded by the racing industry and not taxpayers. The fee is designed to generate $7.6 million in the upcoming fiscal year and $8.5 million for the 2012-13 fiscal year.
This proposal in the budget was roundly rejected by the New York Thoroughbred Horsemen's Association, who characterized the charge as a slap in the face and counter to the governor's pledge not to raise taxes.
"Regardless of how you dress this up, this is an almost 3% tax on New York horsemen," said Richard Violette, president of the horsemen.
Tedisco concluded, "That's a tax and there's no way around it." His spokesman noted that this decision is in addition to the state again withholding VLT funding for the area.
Downplayed as a fee by the governor, Tedisco took serious umbrage with the surcharge, which he characterized as a tax.
He said that the state should be encouraging people to get involved in racing at this point, while this fee will have the opposite effect.
The surcharge in question is a 2.75 percent surcharge on purses for all horse races conducted within the state. The money is designed to eliminate the deficit being run by the Regulation of Racing account. The idea of the proposal is that that account, which is part of the Racing Board, will now be funded by the racing industry and not taxpayers. The fee is designed to generate $7.6 million in the upcoming fiscal year and $8.5 million for the 2012-13 fiscal year.
This proposal in the budget was roundly rejected by the New York Thoroughbred Horsemen's Association, who characterized the charge as a slap in the face and counter to the governor's pledge not to raise taxes.
"Regardless of how you dress this up, this is an almost 3% tax on New York horsemen," said Richard Violette, president of the horsemen.
Tedisco concluded, "That's a tax and there's no way around it." His spokesman noted that this decision is in addition to the state again withholding VLT funding for the area.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Real Rules? Too Soon for Senate
Over strenuous objection from the Senate Minority, the chamber adopted its operating rules for the next two years. The mildly newsworthy change had the effect of silencing a meaningful proposal from Sen. Liz Krueger, D-Righteousville, that was squashed by Republicans on the Rules Committee.
Senate Resolution 357 from Krueger would have strengthened the changes made in 2009 after the failed Senate Coup. Those procedures, while meaningful, were still only a semi-success for the cause of good government. Now, though, the rules from Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos represent two steps back.
In the committee meeting, Chair Tom Libous essentially said it wasn't time for these radical changes and also found a way to tie his argument back to the fact the Democrats overspent by millions on their staff when they were in the majority.
Libous added that the chamber might be exploring more rules in the future, which would be advanced through discussions that were agreed upon by Skelos and Minority Conference Leader John Sampson.
Here are some of the highlights from Krueger's rules:
1. Term limit of 8 years for the Temporary President
2. The number of committees would be reduced (I think it was like 32 to 23)
3. 8 year term limits for Committee Chairs.
4. The RUles Committee can only report a bill if it has been on a published agenda for at least 24 hours, unless there is a message of necessity from the governor.
5. There basically needs to be a heads up on all Committee activities.
6. All committee members must be present in order to vote on any bill or matter
before the committee.
7. You can only vote YES or NO in a committee. None of this "without recommendation" waffling.
8. All Senators shall have equitable access to the resources of the Senate
9. No member initiative funds shall be distributed to organizations for whom the Senator or family member serves as a board member or officer.
10. Bills shall be considered for final passage that do not appear on the active list except with unanimous consent of the Senate unless a petition for chamber consideration shall have been received pursuant to section 3 of Rule XI of the Senate rules.
Senate Resolution 357 from Krueger would have strengthened the changes made in 2009 after the failed Senate Coup. Those procedures, while meaningful, were still only a semi-success for the cause of good government. Now, though, the rules from Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos represent two steps back.
In the committee meeting, Chair Tom Libous essentially said it wasn't time for these radical changes and also found a way to tie his argument back to the fact the Democrats overspent by millions on their staff when they were in the majority.
Libous added that the chamber might be exploring more rules in the future, which would be advanced through discussions that were agreed upon by Skelos and Minority Conference Leader John Sampson.
Here are some of the highlights from Krueger's rules:
1. Term limit of 8 years for the Temporary President
2. The number of committees would be reduced (I think it was like 32 to 23)
3. 8 year term limits for Committee Chairs.
4. The RUles Committee can only report a bill if it has been on a published agenda for at least 24 hours, unless there is a message of necessity from the governor.
5. There basically needs to be a heads up on all Committee activities.
6. All committee members must be present in order to vote on any bill or matter
before the committee.
7. You can only vote YES or NO in a committee. None of this "without recommendation" waffling.
8. All Senators shall have equitable access to the resources of the Senate
9. No member initiative funds shall be distributed to organizations for whom the Senator or family member serves as a board member or officer.
10. Bills shall be considered for final passage that do not appear on the active list except with unanimous consent of the Senate unless a petition for chamber consideration shall have been received pursuant to section 3 of Rule XI of the Senate rules.
Nanny State 3: No Running!
If you live in a city with over 1 million people then I hope you enjoy running with traffic for background noise, because that's the vision of State Senator Carl Kruger, D-Baldmidgetville, who has probably never run a day in his life.
Motivated by three pedestrian deaths in NYC since September, Senate Bill 1945 would restrict the use of electronic devices within a crosswalk in large New York cities.
Kruger's classification of electronic devices includes media players (think I-Pods) and cellphones, on the basis that these things make it impossible for someone to be aware of their surroundings. The bill suggests that just a few seconds could save someone's life.
Additionally, the future law mandates that using the device includes having it in the "immediate proximity" of one's ears.
For risking the lives of pedestrians and motorists, offenders will be charged with a fine of $100.
No word yet on if Assemblyman Felix Ortiz has introduced a companion bill or whether he will just be serving as a crossing guard on every block in his district...
(Look for the bill in the Senate Transportation)
Motivated by three pedestrian deaths in NYC since September, Senate Bill 1945 would restrict the use of electronic devices within a crosswalk in large New York cities.
Kruger's classification of electronic devices includes media players (think I-Pods) and cellphones, on the basis that these things make it impossible for someone to be aware of their surroundings. The bill suggests that just a few seconds could save someone's life.
Additionally, the future law mandates that using the device includes having it in the "immediate proximity" of one's ears.
For risking the lives of pedestrians and motorists, offenders will be charged with a fine of $100.
No word yet on if Assemblyman Felix Ortiz has introduced a companion bill or whether he will just be serving as a crossing guard on every block in his district...
(Look for the bill in the Senate Transportation)
Budget Bothers Breslin a Bit
"We must ask ourselves the following questions. Can our economy withstand a major influx of unemployed workers coming off the payrolls?"
That is the question from State Senator Neil Breslin, D-Albany, who is concerned about the ramifications of the state possibly laying off 9,800 workers. This potentially massive layoff has been laid out by Gov. Andrew Cuomo as the worst case scenario if the state workers don't agree to share some of the pain with cuts in benefits.
Regarding this cost saving measure, Breslin suggested that there might be increased overtime costs as a result. He added that the large number of unemployed people would add further stress to the state's budget, as these people would need some form of economic assistance. This last fear was echoed by Breslin's Republican colleague, Hugh Farley of Niskayuna.
Breslin, though, remains optimistic about avoiding this worst case scenario. "I am confident with [Cuomo's] leadership we can work together to develop a fiscally responsible approach to capture savings," he said.
"The Governor has demonstrated steady leadership during these challenging economic times. I know my colleagues and myself are anxious to work with him to develop a responsible budget that will return New York to fiscal solvency."
This somewhat mixed message from Breslin represents the hard realities of this budget. The truth about being fiscally conservative is that it sometimes requires hard choices, which is code for saying that regular people will be impacted. Savings won't just come from bloated pensions and scheduled raises, but also in the form of meaningful cuts that could represent a child's braces, a family's vacation or some jobs.
That is the question from State Senator Neil Breslin, D-Albany, who is concerned about the ramifications of the state possibly laying off 9,800 workers. This potentially massive layoff has been laid out by Gov. Andrew Cuomo as the worst case scenario if the state workers don't agree to share some of the pain with cuts in benefits.
Regarding this cost saving measure, Breslin suggested that there might be increased overtime costs as a result. He added that the large number of unemployed people would add further stress to the state's budget, as these people would need some form of economic assistance. This last fear was echoed by Breslin's Republican colleague, Hugh Farley of Niskayuna.
Breslin, though, remains optimistic about avoiding this worst case scenario. "I am confident with [Cuomo's] leadership we can work together to develop a fiscally responsible approach to capture savings," he said.
"The Governor has demonstrated steady leadership during these challenging economic times. I know my colleagues and myself are anxious to work with him to develop a responsible budget that will return New York to fiscal solvency."
This somewhat mixed message from Breslin represents the hard realities of this budget. The truth about being fiscally conservative is that it sometimes requires hard choices, which is code for saying that regular people will be impacted. Savings won't just come from bloated pensions and scheduled raises, but also in the form of meaningful cuts that could represent a child's braces, a family's vacation or some jobs.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Silver's Quid Pro Quo
Speaker Sheldon Silver appears to have named his price on the Senate's tax cap, with the Assembly's passage of the rent control legislation on Monday.
The varying goals of the two chambers were laid out at the beginning of the week, according to Assemblyman Jim Tedisco, R-Glenville. He argued that the tax cap will probably only make it through the Assembly if the Senate acts on rent control legislation.
"Our house didn't pass a property tax cap," said Tedisco. "We passed a rent control bill."
Shortly after the rent control bill was passed, Silver introduced a copy of the tax cap bill. This came after a weekend of ambiguity surrounding the tax cap's future in the Assembly, with its passage almost a guarantee in the Senate (as evident by its easy passage on Monday).
Tedisco contended that Silver was making a very overt gesture to the senate, which was that he will move the tax cap after rent control makes it through the senate. "I think they are tied together," he said.
Going forward it will be interesting to see if the two chambers continue to negotiate this way, especially with the budget, which doesn't seem to offer a lot of wiggle room.
The varying goals of the two chambers were laid out at the beginning of the week, according to Assemblyman Jim Tedisco, R-Glenville. He argued that the tax cap will probably only make it through the Assembly if the Senate acts on rent control legislation.
"Our house didn't pass a property tax cap," said Tedisco. "We passed a rent control bill."
Shortly after the rent control bill was passed, Silver introduced a copy of the tax cap bill. This came after a weekend of ambiguity surrounding the tax cap's future in the Assembly, with its passage almost a guarantee in the Senate (as evident by its easy passage on Monday).
Tedisco contended that Silver was making a very overt gesture to the senate, which was that he will move the tax cap after rent control makes it through the senate. "I think they are tied together," he said.
Going forward it will be interesting to see if the two chambers continue to negotiate this way, especially with the budget, which doesn't seem to offer a lot of wiggle room.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)