New York's Court of Appeals Kills Bloomberg's Soda Ban Legislation

The top court in New York, the Court of Appeals, ruled against the Bloomberg era soda law that limited certain carbonated beverage sizes. The law was convoluted, hard to administer, and ignored that there were entire classes of beverages that delivered the same or greater amounts of sugar but were exempt from the size restriction.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/231420602/134opn14-Decision

The court properly ruled against the soda size ban both substantively and procedurally. Mayor Bloomberg seems to have targeted those products that he thought he could ban without a stiffer fight - rather than following the science.

“By choosing among competing policy goals, without any legislative delegation or guidance, the Board engaged in law-making and thus infringed upon the legislative jurisdiction of the City Council of New York,” Judge Eugene F. Pigott wrote for the majority in 4-2 decision.

The ruling likely strikes the final legal blow to the controversial policy enacted by Mayor Bloomberg’s administration to ban large sugary beverages over 16 ounces.

Administration officials had argued the policy was necessary to combat the growing problem of obesity.

In arguments before the court earlier this month, city attorney Richard Dearing argued the 2012 regulation was a reasonable and science-based effort to combat obesity.

The ultimate goal was a worthy one, but that doesn't trump fact that the law was poorly written, it didn't follow the science, and infringed on personal rights and choices.

The law was so poorly thought out that it would have added costs to restaurants and businesses selling drinks by the cup, but it wouldn't appear to ban refills, which is yet another way to circumvent the ban on portion size. It ignored those beverages that are sold at places like 7-11 like the Big Gulp, as well as 2-liter beverages sold in grocery stores, but targeted only those beverages sold by the cup in restaurants. That was a restriction unfairly targeting those businesses and put them at a disadvantage. A restaurant couldn't sell a 32 ounce soda beverage, but the 7-11 next door could.

The law also ignored just how many calories were present in fruit juices, coffee products, and other products that are non-carbonated. That meant that sweetened ice tea wasn't restricted, but a soda beverage with the same calorie count per ounce would be restricted. It made no sense until you realize how the law was shaped by the need to get something passed and this was the path of least resistance; it had nothing to do with science.


And, as I've noted before, the soda makers could rebut the empty calories claims by adding vitamins and minerals to the soda products (and we're already starting to see some of that). It also ignores that obesity isn't the product of drinking more soda - if anything consumption of soda has declined, but obesity rates have continued to increase. Even the shift to more sugar-free sodas hasn't reduced the obesity epidemic. It's because people substitute even more calories from other sources when they think that they're not getting calories from soda. They pile on to their plates when they think they're getting a calorie free soda.

Obesity is a product of a sedentary lifestyle and consumption choices. Bloomberg seems to think that hiking the price of soda (which is what the ban on super-sized beverages would have) will result in reduced consumption and lower obesity levels. I expect that people will simply choose other alternatives and continue consumption of all calories at existing levels. Substitution will occur - not reduction.

The problem is that obesity isn't something as simple as cutting out soda. It means reducing overall calories, changing lifestyles, and making better and healthier diet choices.

The soda ban doesn't accomplish any of that. And the Court properly struck it down.

NYC Department of Health Approves Super-Sized Soda Ban

In what should be a surprise to absolutely no one, the New York City Department of Health rubber stamped Mayor Mike Bloomberg's proposal to ban sugared beverages that exceed 16 ounces. The vote was 8-0 with one absention.

The regulation passed Thursday puts a 16-ounce size limit on cups and bottles of non-diet soda, sweetened teas and other calorie-packed beverages.

The ban will apply in fast-food joints, movie houses and Broadway theaters, workplace cafeterias and most other places selling prepared food.

It doesn't cover supermarkets or most convenience stores.

City health officials say the ban is necessary to combat a deadly obesity epidemic.

The ban would take effect in March 2013. Health experts claim that the limit would help fight the obesity epidemic, and that soda is nothing but empty calories.

Never mind that this becomes an indirect tax on those who purchase the oversized beverages rather than a multitude of smaller beverages (sharing among multiple cheaper because it's cheaper per ounce to do so).

Setting aside the nanny-state aspects of the ban, which are numerous, there are practical problems with the ban.


The ban ignores that there are other more dangerous food products that are just as likely, if not more so, to cause adverse health effects.

No one is calling for bans on sales of steaks larger than 8 ounces, even though beef products can contain more fat and calories that can pack on the pounds and lead to obesity.

Here, the focus appears to be on the "empty" calories, and nothing more.

There are carve-out exemptions for milk-based beverages, such as iced coffees, and juices, and that too ignores that those beverages contain far more calories than the now-banned products.

The restrictions would not affect fruit juices, dairy-based drinks like milkshakes, or alcoholic beverages; no-calorie diet sodas would not be affected, but establishments with self-service drink fountains, like many fast-food restaurants, would not be allowed to stock cups larger than 16 ounces.

Only establishments that receive inspection grades from the health department would have to obey the rules, a group that includes movie theaters and stadium concession stands. Convenience stores, including 7-Eleven and its king-size “Big Gulp” drinks, would be exempt, along with vending machines and some newsstands.

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg has said the plan does not limit consumers’ choices, since customers can still purchase as many 16-ounce drinks as they would like. The soft-drink industry, which has spent more $1 million on a public-relations campaign opposing the plan, argues that the policy restricts consumers’ freedom to buy beverages as they see fit.

Six in 10 residents said they thought the plan was a bad idea in a recent poll by The New York Times. But the measure easily earned the approval of the health board, whose members were appointed by the mayor. The board voted eight to zero, with one abstention, to approve the measure just after 11 a.m. Thursday.

Mr. Bloomberg has made curbing obesity a top goal for his administration, citing higher rates of diabetes and fatalities among the city’s more overweight neighborhoods. More than half of adult New Yorkers are obese or overweight, according to the city’s health department.

Bloomberg seems to have targeted those products that he thought he could ban without a stiffer fight - rather than following the science.

This wouldn't appear to ban refills, which is yet another way to circumvent the ban on portion size.

And, as I've noted before, the soda makers could rebut the empty calories claims by adding vitamins and minerals to the soda products. It also ignores that obesity isn't the product of drinking more soda - if anything consumption of soda has declined, but obesity rates have continued to increase.

Obesity is a product of a sedentary lifestyle and consumption choices. Bloomberg seems to think that hiking the price of soda (which is what the ban on super-sized beverages would have) will result in reduced consumption and lower obesity levels. I expect that people will simply choose other alternatives and continue consumption of all calories at existing levels. Substitution will occur - not reduction.

If the New York City ban takes effect as scheduled, expect other cities to follow suit.

NYC and TLC Making Mess of Taxi and Transit Systems

On top of a trial court decision yesterday that claims that the payroll tax used to fund the MTA is invalid, the Taxi and Limousine and New York City are doing their best to screw up the transportation system in the region.

The TLC has been updating the look for the ubiquitous yellow cabs. They've already signed off on a new design that isn't fully ADA compliant - because not every new cab will be required to be accessible.

Now, the TLC has decided to streamline the logos and information provided on the side of the cabs by stripping away all extraneous information.

T is for taxi, and that's good enough for the TLC. The look of the New York City taxi cab is changing again, and no we aren't talking about the Taxi of Tomorrow. Five years after the Taxi & Limousine Commission turned to Smart Design to create a new logo and graphics for NYC cabs they've gone and streamlined their work. We hope you don't like checking the current price of a taxi ride on the door of a cab!

Yup, going forward the fare panel on the side of taxis are no more. After all, we now have Taxi TVs to tell us that information (sigh). Also going away are the last vestiges of the checkered cabs as those black and white checks on the back are going away. Oh, and the word taxi. Yup, now cab doors will simply say NYC T (with the T in a black circle), not NYC Taxi.

"We have no doubt that a yellow car with a roof light with a big T will be understood as a New York City taxicab," TLC chair David Yassky explains. "Even the greenest of greenhorns will know that it’s a taxicab."

The cabs will now have a logo "T" and the cab identifier, but no other information.

They used to have Taxi written out, along with rate information.

Okay, they're trying to play around with branding, and a logo can be branded, but the word taxi can't. If that's part of the plan, then I get that.

But why drop the rate information? At a time when Mayor Mike Bloomberg has been pushing restaurants to include calorie counts on menus, he's allowing a policy that takes relevant information to commuters off the outside of cabs? How is that customer friendly? It's an asinine consideration, and the design team that came up with the plan spent just how much to revise the logos and information? It was a waste of money.

Meanwhile, back to the payroll tax. Ben Kabab highlights the multitude of problems with the ruling invalidating the tax. It is a huge hit to the MTA, which is funded in part from the tax. If it's upheld by the Appellate Division or State Court of Appeals, then the MTA would see a permanent loss of more than a billion dollars annually. That's money that can't be made up without slugging commuters or spreading out the costs to all taxpayers in the form of a new tax.

At the same time, a separate ruling invalidated the Mayor's plan to bring cab service to the outer boroughs. In that instance, the Mayor sought to make the changes in the state legislature rather than go through the City Council. The big problem is once again money. The Mayor bet a billion dollars on revenue raised from the sale of new medallions, and the court decision throws the city budget out of whack.

Taxi medallion owners have an inordinate amount of power to block any changes to the medallion system. They're vested in maximizing the costs of medallions, where the sale of an existing medallion can reach a million dollars or more. Allowing more medallions would dilute the value of existing medallions. The problem is that the medallion owners have the city council in its collective pocket and they've thwarted prior efforts to expand cab service to the outer boroughs where transit service is more spotty. The Mayor sought to change the status quo by going to the legislature, but this is a home rule issue. So, the Mayor has to go back to the drawing board to figure out how to expand service and close the budget hole of his own creation.

While he's at it, he better get on the TLC to make ADA compliance required across all cabs, not just a small fraction. And he could further assist in the transit policy by allowing disabled persons to use ADA-compliant cabs instead of Access-a-Ride buses that are costing the MTA far more than it ever imagined ($500+ million annually and growing). Since most cab rides are for far less than the cost per passenger for Access-a-Ride, a solution can be found here if the mayor, TLC and MTA can hash out an agreement.

But that means getting the medallion owners to back the changes.

Taxi of Tomorrow But Not Handicapped Accessible?

A funny thing happened on the way to New York City arriving at its decision to use a Nissan design for the Taxi of Tomorrow. ADA compliance went out the window and only a fraction of the new vehicles will have to meet accessibility requirements.

That's total nonsense.

You see, London has chosen a design for its new taxis, and they've chosen the same Nissan design, except that all its vehicles will be accessible.

But in at least one one fundamental way the two taxis diverge: In London, all of the vehicles will be wheelchair-accessible. In New York, only a small fraction of them will be.

“London has the most accessible taxi fleet in the world with every licensed taxi being fully wheelchair-accessible,” explained John Mason, Transport for London’s Director of Taxi and Private Hire, in a statement emailed to Capital.

In its recent press release unveiling the new vehicle, Nissan boasted that, “A particular focus was also placed on providing for passengers with mobility issues," and included a very supportive statement from Assist UK, which runs a network of homes for the disabled.

Contrast that with New York City, where only 233 of the city's more than 13,000 taxis can accommodate wheelchairs. The mayor's new taxi overhaul plan would put another 2,000 wheelchair accessible cabs on the street, but that plan is facing some serious legal hurdles at the moment.

Meanwhile, the Taxi and Limousine Commission’s very selection of a so-called "Taxi of Tomorrow" that cannot accommodate wheelchairs has left disabled advocates, and their political allies, enraged.

Comptroller John Liu has vowed to hold up the city’s contract with Nissan (though it’s not clear that's within his power).

“The Mayor should take a cue from our friends across the pond and ensure that the Taxi of Tomorrow is a taxi for everyone," said Liu's spokesman, Michael Loughran, in an email.

A spokesman for Taxis for All, a group of disabled advocates fighting for greater taxi accessibility, wondered why New York could not replicate London, where taxi accessibility has been mandated since 1989.

Accessibility is a huge problem for getting around New York City. The subway system has only a fraction of its stations that are ADA compliant. Buses have lifts, but Access-a-Ride is how the MTA tries to deal with its ADA compliance. Access-a-Ride is costing hundreds of millions of dollars a year - and each trip costs $60 per rider. That's unsustainable. It would be cheaper to simply give those people a cab ride, but the number of accessible cabs are woefully low and are all but impossible to find in the outer boroughs.

There's no reason that the new taxi design would be fully ADA compliant as per the British design and it would meet the needs for the next generation of cabs around the world.

What we are seeing though is that politics and money are trumping sound public policy. Cab owners (the ones who own medallions - the right to have taxis) don't want to see the value of those medallions diluted by new ones, so they've gotten the TLC to dilute their plans for new taxis, even though the cab drivers (who aren't the owners in most cases) are paying for operating costs out of their own pockets while the owners are raking in profits. The ADA compliance has fallen by the boards even though ADA compliance would be a tremendous step forward in improving transit connectivity throughout the City.

Nanny State In Action: Bloomberg's Boobish Plan

New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg continues proposing health-related plan after health related plan, regardless of their constitutionality (the sugared beverage plan) or smoking bans in public spaces (and restaurants, etc.). His latest idea is to ban giving new mothers formula as part of a plan to increase the number of mothers breast feeding.

Mayor Bloomberg is pushing hospitals to hide their baby formula behind locked doors so more new mothers will breast-feed.

Starting Sept. 3, the city will keep tabs on the number of bottles that participating hospitals stock and use — the most restrictive pro-breast-milk program in the nation.
Under the city Health Department’s voluntary Latch On NYC initiative, 27 of the city’s 40 hospitals have also agreed to give up swag bags sporting formula-company logos, toss out formula-branded tchotchkes like lanyards and mugs, and document a medical reason for every bottle that a newborn receives.

While breast-feeding activists applaud the move, bottle-feeding moms are bristling at the latest lactation lecture.

“If they put pressure on me, I would get annoyed,” said Lynn Sidnam, a Staten Island mother of two formula-fed girls, ages 4 months and 9 years. “It’s for me to choose.”
Under Latch On NYC, new mothers who want formula won’t be denied it, but hospitals will keep infant formula in out-of-the-way secure storerooms or in locked boxes like those used to dispense and track medications.

With each bottle a mother requests and receives, she’ll also get a talking-to. Staffers will explain why she should offer the breast instead.

“It’s the patient’s choice,” said Allison Walsh, of Beth Israel Medical Center. “But it’s our job to educate them on the best option.”

Doctors have long known of the benefits of breast feeding but it is ultimately up to the parents to decide. Many have already talked the matter over with their physicians, and are able to make an informed decision. Lactation specialists at hospitals are more than welcome to share their information on how to prepare expectant and new mothers on how to maximize their experience and how to best nurture their newborns.

But to knowingly make it more difficult for new mothers to obtain formula? That's just nuts. Not every new mother can and would have the opportunity to breast feed once they're out of the hospital. Some could have medical conditions that make it impossible. Others could have job situations that make breast feeding (or pumping) impractical or impossible. They've already given it thought and the notion that the Bloomberg, by and through his Health Department, can limit access to formula is most certainly an infringement on the patient's right to choose a course of treatment and what's best for them and their children.

In fact, his proposal could actually worsen the health of the mother - it could lead to further post-partum depression since mothers who have made the choice not to breast feed will be continually lectured each time they seek to bottle feed. It will spur a feeling of inadequacy:

For many women, breastfeeding is HARD, that's why there are lactation consultants who charge like $175/private visit or $35 for a 15-minute phone call after you leave the hospital. And when the breastfeeding isn't going well, it really makes the mom depressed. For some moms and babies, it's easy, for others, it's harder.

It is bureaucracy at its worst, and even worse, it is a waste of limited health care resources.

Time wasted each time on giving instructions about breast feeding over bottle feedings is time that could go to improving care in other more important facets. It would mean less time devoted to infection control and making sure health care instructions are followed upon discharge - those two issues are a massive problem for hospitals since it leads to unnecessary complications and quantifiable health care costs.

Bloomberg's nanny state ways continue to irritate and show no bounds. Many New Yorkers will likely be relieved when Bloomberg's term comes to a close.

If Bloomberg were truly seeking to improve health care and the lives of New Yorkers, he would be directing the Department to seek tighter regulation on infection control and discharge instructions at City-controlled/operated hospitals. Consumer Reports recently ranked hospitals based on quality of care issues, and many of the hospitals fared poorly (both city-run and privately operated facilities including nationally known ones such as NYU Medical Center for instance), precisely because of infection control and instruction issues that lead to readmissions. Making sure that hospitals improve in these areas would have a huge impact on public health.

The focus must be there; Bloomberg is addressing a non-issue and a non-starter.

Rezoning: A Lasting Legacy of Mayor Bloomberg

While there's plenty to complain about when it comes to New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg (the inane and likely unconstitutional soda ban being one), one area that he's excelled at is the ability to get vast swaths of underutilized areas of the city rezoned for commercial and residential development.

That includes major developments like Hudson Yards, Atlantic Yards, DUMBO, and now a portion of the Bronx near the Sheridan Expressway.

A development firm co-founded by Gifford Miller, a former New York City Council speaker, though, is betting that the stretch, rezoned for residential use last October, can be transformed into what the Bronx borough president, Rubén Díaz Jr., calls “a small city.” The project, which is to include 1,325 units of housing and 46,000 square feet of retail space, took an important step forward this month, when it received $1.2 million in capital financing from Mr. Diaz’s office and another $1.3 million allocated by City Councilman Joel Rivera.

That money, combined with financing from the city’s Department of Housing Preservation and Development, will allow Mr. Miller’s company, Signature Urban Properties, to move forward on construction of the project’s first two buildings, he said. The initial plans call for a total of 237 residential units and 4,200 square feet of retail space in those structures, with low-income housing in one building and moderate-income housing in the other. Construction could begin as soon as early next year, Mr. Miller said, with the entire 10-building project taking seven to nine years to complete.

The Bronx development would benefit greatly from the elimination of the Sheridan Expressway and replace it with a grade level boulevard with park space. The Sheridan is functionally obsolete and the traffic isn't commensurate with the effort devoted to maintaining the roadway (to say nothing of the mess it makes of the Bruckner Expressway interchange.

Soda Ban Proposal Gets Health Department Public Hearing Today

The New York City Department of Health will be holding a hearing today to allow comment on a proposal to ban certain kinds of sales of sugar-containing beverages.

A just released study by New York University found that the ban as proposed would cut caloric intake by 63 calories, but the results may be negligible as customers simply buy more of the beverages:

Mayor Bloomberg's proposed ban caps a maximum size of 16 ounces for sugary drinks - sold in cups or bottles - at food establishments under the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene's jurisdiction. That includes restaurants, fast food chains, delis, street carts and movie theaters. Drinks sold at grocery and convenience stores - including two-liter bottles and 7-11's "Big Gulp" fountain drinks - would be exempt from the ban.

New research led by Dr. Brian Elbel, an assistant professor of population health and health policy at NYU Langone School of Medicine in New York City, analyzed what impact Mayor Bloomberg's proposal would have on a typical consumer's calorie intake.

Elbel and fellow NYU researchers pooled data from two studies that included 1,624 sales receipts listing a non-milkshake beverage (dairy products are excluded from the proposed ban), which were collected from diners at three different fast-food restaurants in New York City, Newark, N.J., Philadelphia and Baltimore from 2008 to 2010. Their research is published in a correspondence to the editor in the July 23 online issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.

Based on the receipts and corresponding survey information collected from the studies, the researchers determined that 62 percent of beverages bought at these restaurants would be over 16 ounces and subject to the mayor's new proposal. Elbel explained to HealthPop in an interview that if 100 percent of fast food consumers switched to a 16-ounce drink from their previous order, the average consumer would take in 63 fewer calories per trip to a fast-food restaurant.

However that's assuming nobody opts to purchase an additional 16-ounce beverage - people can buy as many as they like at these establishments under Bloomberg's proposal - which Elbel conceded may not be likely. His research found that if only 30 percent of consumers reduced their intake to a 16-ounce beverage, the decrease in calories would be negligible.

I've repeatedly stated my opposition to this ban on several grounds, including that it arbitrarily creates a class of banned beverages, even though there are other beverages that contain far more calories per ounce and that other lifestyle choices can have a far greater impact on public health (many a Starbucks beverage will often have more calories than a soda as would many of the iced beverages sold at McDonalds and other chains).

In other words, the class of beverages affected is arbitrary and will not have any appreciable effect on obesity, but it would pave the way for far more intrusive changes imposed by health departments around the country.

Sedentary lifestyles play a significant role in obesity and getting more exercise needs to be considered. Cutting soda portion size isn't a panacea, particularly when soda consumption has been down even as the number of obese people has increased. Something else is at play when soda consumption is down even as the percentage of obese people has increased. That something happens to include a sedentary lifestyle and oversized food portions.

Mayor Bloomberg's proposals are about what he thinks the Department of Health can get away with as far as limiting portion sizes, not based on actual science or greatest impact on public health.

It still comes down to personal choice, and a person will take in far more calories than they need, which is why so many people try and fail on diets to eat sensibly and within their caloric needs as determined by nutritionists or diet experts. The failure to exercise makes things all the worse.

After all, someone who eats a 16 ounce porterhouse or other similar steak will take in far more calories than someone drinking a 16 ounce soda, but there's no limiting the restaurant from serving even bigger portions of steak, even though a serving size is a fraction of that amount.

This is just a misguided effort by a nanny stater to impose a ban that will have a negligible effect on public health.

The Rebuilding of Ground Zero, Part 165

There's been little movement on the resumption of construction of the National 9/11 Museum, despite a visit from President Obama last week and the principal politicians and bureaucrats involved in the museum and memorial process all present at the same time.

New York and New Jersey Governors Andrew Cuomo and Chris Christie have called on the National Park Service to get involved in the memorial and museum endeavor, but both Governors ignore that they hold key roles in the redevelopment and rebuilding process. They're the ones to whom the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey answers. If the governors had wanted to get the process restarted and completed, they could have forced the Port Authority to cut a deal with the memorial and museum foundation.

Instead, we're seeing nothing but delaying tactics from the Port Authority and shifting and denying blame for the delays.

And the New York Post is reporting that Governor Cuomo appears to have it in for Mayor Mike Bloomberg, who holds a key position in the memorial foundation - a personal spat is blocking redevelopment:

Gov. Cuomo is so angry about his dad being dissed by Mayor Bloomberg, he’s holding funding for the 9/11 Museum hostage until a new mayor is elected, sources told The Post.

Officials close to Cuomo said it all became personal because of how his father — former Gov. Mario Cuomo — was treated by the mayor’s people at Ground Zero ceremonies last Sept. 11.

The elder Cuomo was first hassled about 6:45 a.m. that Sunday as he tried to clear security and get into the perimeter of the World Trade Center site.

A short time later, he was again blocked — that time as he tried to access the 9/11 memorial. That confrontation was defused only when a PA official intervened,
One of the governor’s top aides, Joe Percoco, was also hassled by city staffers at the event, even though he was in the governor’s entourage.

Events that day only added insult to injury for the governor.

He was already enraged over the way he felt City Hall tried to minimize his role in planning the ceremonies. He was also angry at being assigned a reading from Franklin Roosevelt’s “Four Freedoms” speech, because it had been read at a previous 9/11 event by former Gov. George Pataki.

“Mario didn’t want to cause a scene [on 9/11] so he was quiet about it, but it was certainly raised internally. Everybody has heard about it,” a source involved in the city-state museum talks told The Post.

A source close to the mayor said Bloomberg’s feeling about the governor’s reaction is that “on the chart of crazy, it’s off the charts.”

I'm not quite sure how much we can read into this, but personal politics has driven the redevelopment of the World Trade Center off the rails from the outset. It was Gov. Pataki's decision to pick Daniel Libeskind's master plan despite better designs offered up by the likes of Sir Norman Foster (who had experience doing major projects of the size and scope).

That led, in turn, to all kinds of problems with Libeskind's skyscraper designs that led to choosing other architects to design and build the towers that are rising around the site. Libeskind may have his name on the master plan, but his name isn't associated with any of the tower designs. All that added up to years of extra delays and higher rebuilding costs.

And the personal politics continues - with personality conflicts likely playing a role in bringing construction of the museum to a standstill.

I've argued for some time now that the NPS should have been involved from the get-go and that they are uniquely qualified to tell the story of 9/11, the 1993 WTC bombing, and the history of the site. The memorial foundation may have raised hundreds of millions of dollars for that purpose, but they're still short on how to fund ongoing operations once the museum is open. That's a huge concern going forward because the museum is not only meant to teach current generations about what happened at the World Trade Center, but to inform future generations.

It should not be subject to entry fees to learn about this critical era of American and world history.

UPDATE:
Governor Cuomo's office calls the NY Post story 100% absolutely false. However, the issue of control over the site is the real reason work has come to a standstill:

Bloomberg and the governors disagree on who should foot the costs—Bloomberg wants the Port Authority to continue paying, but the governors reportedly "contend the PA is willing to pay its share but won’t write a blank check that could amount to hundreds of millions down the road. The governors also insist that the PA maintain day-to-day control over the entire WTC site. The 9/11 Museum is operated by a private foundation chaired by the mayor." One Port Authority official told the Post, "This whole fight is Cuomo and Bloomberg. And it’s about which one of them is going to control the legacy of 9/11."

There's no reason that the Port Authority should maintain day-to-day control; they've botched nearly every aspect of rebuilding - from the planning and design to the containment of costs and missed deadlines at every opportunity. Much of the work above ground has proceeded despite the efforts of the Port Authority - not because of the agency.

So, while Cuomo and Christie are calling on the National Park Service to get involved, they aren't pushing the Port Authority to do what is within its power to do - namely finish the rebuilding process in a timely and cost-effective manner. That's on them - not the memorial foundation or anyone else.

The Rebuilding of Ground Zero, Part 164

President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama will be visiting the World Trade Center site this afternoon to view progress at the site as part of a trip to New York City that includes two fundraisers for the 2012 campaign.

The trip will disrupt the commutes of tens of thousands of people who use the PATH station at the WTC (myself included), but the President needs to do more than just view the progress all while meeting with steel workers and the governors of New York and New Jersey along with Port Authority officials and Mayor Mike Bloomberg. He needs to get the Port Authority to quit its inane demands on the WTC Memorial Foundation and push ahead with completing its work on the museum and PATH Transit Hub, both of which are years behind schedule. The Museum opening keeps getting pushed back with each passing day and the earliest it may open is towards the 3rd quarter of 2013. It was supposed to be open this September.

Ferreting out who wants what has been harder than cracking the National Security Agency. Eventually, we sifted the misinformation to discover that the PA, which controls the Ground Zero site and is building the museum for the foundation, is behaving very, very badly.

Samson and Foye must, first, get through their heads that they are cutting a deal with a nonprofit foundation set up to construct proper 9/11 remembrances and not with, say, the developer of a retail mall.

Banished from the talks must be thought of asking the foundation for a percentage of revenues from museum admissions or gift shop sales. The concept is so preposterous as to defy belief that anyone could have raised it seriously — instead of as a throwaway bargaining tactic. Get rid of it.

Also to be dropped is any idea that the Port Authority will muscle out the foundation to take greater command of the memorial and museum. The PA must keep hands off.

It is a political agency that has no business presiding over sensitive issues such as how aspects of the 9/11 story will be told. Just as bad, the authority would succumb to the temptation to open the property to speechifying by elected officials.

The Port Authority, which operates at the behest of Governors Chris Christie (R-NJ) and Andrew Cuomo (D-NY), has been fighting with the memorial foundation, which is headed by Mayor Mike Bloomberg, over costs and the work has groaned to a standstill for months.

While 1WTC (Freedom Tower) and 4WTC continue rising skywards, and the Fiterman Hall project nears completion, the Port Authority's work on the transit hub, vehicle security center, and the museum are crawling along as costs pile up.

Bloomberg Supports Cuomo's Call To Revise New York Marijuana Possession Laws

Arrests for marijuana possession are among the top crimes caught under the NYPD's Stop and Frisk policy. That policy has been under attack for its disproportionate focus on minorities throughout the city.

Governor Andrew Cuomo has now floated a proposal to reduce the penalty for possession of a joint to a violation, essentially decriminalizing the possession of amounts under 25 grams.

Mr. Bloomberg, whose administration had previously defended low-level marijuana arrests as a way to deter more serious crime, said in a statement that the governor’s proposal “strikes the right balance” in part because it would still allow the police to arrest people who were smoking marijuana in public.

Mr. Cuomo, a Democrat, plans to hold a news conference at the Capitol on Monday to announce his plans to seek the change in state law. Administration officials said the governor would seek to downgrade the possession of 25 grams or less of marijuana in public view from a misdemeanor to a violation, with a maximum fine of $100 for first-time offenders.

Mr. Bloomberg said his police commissioner, Raymond W. Kelly, would attend the governor’s news conference “to show our support for his proposal.”

“We look forward to working with legislative leaders to help pass a bill before the end of session,” the mayor said, referring to this year’s legislative session in Albany, which is scheduled to conclude in three weeks.

In his statement, the mayor noted that last September, Mr. Kelly issued a memorandum to officers clarifying that they were not to arrest people who take small amounts of marijuana out of their pockets after being stopped by the police.

Mr. Bloomberg said that the governor’s proposal was “consistent with the commissioner’s directive.”

Bloomberg's changed stance increases the chances that the proposal may gain traction in the state. Reducing the penalties would also reduce the number of people who would be brought into the criminal justice system and reduce costs over the long haul - though that has the potential to be offset by an increase in crime. Expect Republicans to focus on the potential for higher crime, though they may also see the reduced costs for incarceration and processing of low-level drug crimes. Even Gov. Chris Christie in New Jersey has called for revision of drug crime penalties to reflect the fact that the state can't afford to incarcerate low-level drug offenders.

The Rebuilding of Ground Zero, Part 161

Construction remains at a near standstill on the WTC Museum. The anticipated September 2012 deadline will be missed and it's looking like mid 2013 is the earliest that anyone should expect the museum to be opened. That's perhaps being optimistic considering the money involved and that the Port Authority and the Museum Board, which includes Mayor Mike Bloomberg are fighting over the development costs that differ by hundreds of millions of dollars.

Even if both sides are able to work out a deal, there's no word on whether entry fees that could be as high as $25 per person will be imposed to help cover the $50-$60 million annual operating costs. As it stands, Congress appears completely unwilling to foot that bill, even though this was the site of the worst terror attacks in world history and more than 3,000 people were killed in the attacks (and subsequently falling ill and dying of injuries sustained from working on the Pile).

Within the next few days, a federal officials will rule whether certain cancers will covered under the 9/11 Victim Compensation Package for first responders who have suffered a variety of health ailments since working in the rubble of the Twin Towers.

Despite the problems with the museum, and even a small fire at 1WTC (Freedom Tower), President Obama will be visiting 1WTC on June 14 to see the progress at the site first-hand.

The Big Hole In Bloomberg's Health Kick

Just days after calling for an outright ban on super-sized soda portions in most New York City establishments, Mayor Mike Bloomberg saw fit to issue a proclamation honoring National Donut Day.

I'd say that's a huge hole in Bloomberg's health policy.

As it is, I doubt that Mayor Bloomberg would be willing to ban any serving of Waygu beef larger than 4 ounces (or any steak for that matter), considering that most 4oz portions of beef have as much calories as the size soda he's looking to ban (and beef has more fat, but more other nutrients as well).

If the issue is calories, why not ban super sized juices or milk shakes (those are exempt under the proposed rule). And if you're a soda maker, why not add other nutrients to show that the sodas aren't merely empty calories - one of the justifications for the ban/taxing of soda proposals.

Fact is that obesity is a problem but it's not only due to nutrition (or bad nutrition). The fact that so many people sit on their asses all day and don't get exercise is a major contributing factor. We simply eat far more than we burn off - and that packs on the pounds.

Portion control would go a long way, but that's personal choice too. And nothing is being done - either by individuals or the companies selling them - to deal with the super-sized portions at restaurants of all stripes. People keep consuming stuff without regard to the consequences. The calorie counts may help with that, but ultimately it comes down to the individual to decide what, and how much, to eat or drink.

Nothing is going to stop a person from buying multiple beverages other than the costs (which is an indirect tax on those who want to get those beverages).

However, if you're interested - both Dunkin' Donuts and Krispy Kreme are giving away free donuts (though I think you need to buy a beverage at DnD to get the freebie).

UPDATE:
Bloomberg is busy rationalizing the discrepancy between calling for a super-sized soda ban and honoring donuts. One donut may be as bad or worse than one of those super-sized sodas, depending on what that donut is.

The reason he thinks he can get away with a soda ban is that soda will continue to be sold in other sizes, but he can't ban donuts (or other regularly sold food products) because of the uproar had he even thought about it.

If He Can't Tax It, Bloomberg Hopes To Ban Big Gulp-Sized Soda Sales

Mayor Mike Bloomberg continues his nanny-state ways. His latest proposal is to ban sales of super-sized sugary beverages:

The man behind calorie counts is set to announce a new public health initiative to battle obesity, taking aim at super-sized sugary drinks.

In other words, it may soon be time to say goodbye to those Big Gulps, those Slurpees or even Venti at Starbucks, CBS 2’s Derricke Dennis reported.

“That’s okay,” one person said.

No it’s not, according to Mayor Bloomberg, who is set to propose a ban on sugary drinks over 16 ounces everywhere, all across the city.

“I disagree with it, because it’s the right to choose. If you want to drink a Slurpee, you should be allowed to drink a Slurpee,” said Jamie Sawyer, a tourist from Oklahoma.

It's one thing to require calorie counts so that people can have the knowledge to choose products that may be healthier and lower in calories.

It's quite another to ban an entire size category - anything larger than 16 ounces. Nothing stops those who are already buying those products from simply buying two of the smaller size - and increasing the costs to the purchaser (which might be part of Bloomberg's strategy).

However, soda and sugary beverages aren't the sole culprit, or even the main culprit in an obesity epidemic. Consider that most folks aren't getting enough exercise. A sedentary lifestyle plays a far greater role than soda.

Then, there's the caloric intake due to super sized meal portions or even portions at high end restaurants that blow the scales on calories. Consider that a famed restaurant like Junior's in Brooklyn is notable for their desserts, including cheesecake. Those portions aren't small. In fact, a single serving could feed two or more people in many cases. We're not talking an insubstantial calorie count either.

How about the steakhouses around the city (either sole locations or chains). They offer up huge steak portions - thousands of calories, tons of fat, protein, and other nutrients. Those aren't even being considered.

So, does this in fact turn out to be a "tax" on those who are least able to afford food cost increases? Since many vendors charge far less for the largest sizes of beverages per ounce than those with the smaller sizes, sharing among family members or friends would be out of the question with Bloomberg's ban, and it would mean that customers would incur higher charges to get the same amount of product.

Moreover, there's no reason to single out sodas and sugary beverages from other products - like juices or milk-based products (like milk shakes) if we're talking strictly calorie counts - the basis of Bloomberg's premise behind the proposed ban.

It appears that the only reason that juice and milk-based products aren't included in the ban is because they have other nutrients. Yet, juice and milk shakes can contain as much or more calories per ounce than soda - and the fact that soda doesn't have any other nutrients could be altered if the soda manufacturers add other nutrients to them - to get around a proposed ban.

If Bloomberg goes ahead with this ban, watch soda manufacturers consider lawsuits seeking to overturn the ban, as well as consider adding vitamins or minerals to show that these aren't merely empty calories (and undermining Bloomberg's premise). UPDATE: To give you an idea of how asinine Bloomberg's proposal is, consider that a T-bone steak - 8 oz worth is 448 calories. That compares to 8 ounces of Coca Cola that runs 98 calories. It would take 32 ounces of soda to equal the steak, and the steak has other issues (namely fats that contribute to obesity, although there is protein and other nutritional value to steak in moderation.

Despite Bloomberg Saying Nothing Wrong With Stop and Frisk; NYPD Commissioner Kelly Institutes Reforms

It's curious how Mayor Mike Bloomberg can defend stop and frisk as a policy that works on the same day that NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly announces reforms of the program to address community concerns.

In a letter sent earlier today to Council Speaker Christine Quinn, Kelly said top-ranking officials in each police precinct will now be required to audit reports of street stops by officers. This is in addition to a review undertaken at weekly Compstat meetings by the chief of the department, he wrote.

“I believe these measures will help us more closely monitor the daily street encounter activity of precinct personnel,” he wrote.

He also said that the department has republished an order prohibiting racial profiling and has created a new training course that “provides personnel with an additional level of clarity in determining when and how to conduct a lawful stop.”

Quinn, who released Kelly’s letter, said in a statement that the changes announced were “an important step forward” but said more needs to be done to reduce the number of stops and “bridge the divide between the NYPD and the communities they serve.”

A federal judge yesterday granted class-action status to a lawsuit against the city’s stop-and-frisk practices. The lawsuit alleges that the NYPD has systematically targeted blacks and Latinos and trampled on Constitutional protections against unreasonable searches.

Particularly of interest is the fact that Kelly had to reiterate the prohibition of racial profiling and additional training on how to conduct lawful stops. It would seem to be a nod to the fact that the policies that were previously put in place were insufficient or that the cops carrying out the stop and frisk activities need additional training.

Part of the problem with the program as a whole may be diminishing returns on a program that started out with the best of intentions and did take criminals and their weapons off the streets, but which has become a slave to its own statistics as a metric of how much activity beat cops are doing on a regular basis.

Even NYPD Professionals Are Questioning The Scope of Stop and Frisk

The release of data showing just how frequently the NYPD is using Stop and Frisk as a police tactic to reduce crime is staggering with its implications and whether the program is no longer achieving its objectives. It's got top level police officials questioning whether the program has gone off the rails - for performance objectives sake - and ignoring the implications for civil rights and actual crime fighting.

Last Friday, the NYPD revealed they conducted 204,000 "Stop-and-Frisks" in just the first three months of the year, pushing the boundary even further.

How has a police department that was conducting 500,000 stop and frisks a year — or 1,400-a-day — compelled the same number of troops to conduct 200,000 more — or 500 additional stops every day?

And why?

Is it all about fighting crime? Is it about Kelly and Bloomberg’s legacy?
One official offered insight.

He said the department a year or so ago quietly issued "performance standards" that only "put more pressure downward on cops, asking them, 'What did you do this week?'

"And the feeling was, ‘If they were going to break my balls, then I will just do what I know they want and end my problem. Period.'"

This well intentioned program started off well - and it was getting criminals off the street when it was focused on high crime areas, but as the program expanded, it started having unintended consequences. Instead of putting the community and police on the same page as far as fighting criminal elements in the communities, it creates distrust and apprehension.

If police commanders in precincts are encouraged to show results - one way they can do so is by putting more of their beat cops on stop and frisk details, and they can show that they're in the field by reporting on the number of stop and frisks on a daily basis. It's a numbers driven policy that doesn't actually reduce crime and may be taking resources away from those tactics that have been shown to work best.

It's time to put stop and frisk back into its context - to use it in high crime areas. This is one time where the statistics do not back up stop and frisk.

Mayor Bloomberg's Latest Anti-Smoking Idea? Setting Rules in Apartment Buildings

Mayor Mike Bloomberg's latest nanny-state idea actually makes some sense. It calls for apartment buildings to set rules about where and how people can smoke in the buildings. The proposal has to go to the City Council for deliberation.

In his latest salvo in his war on cigarettes, Mayor Bloomberg proposed sweeping legislation Wednesday to curb smoking in residential buildings — by requiring owners to adopt written policies on where butts are banned.

“This does not prohibit anything,” Bloomberg insisted. “It just gives people the right to know before they sign a lease, and it seems to be very popular.”

The law would force owners of buildings with three or more units to inform prospective tenants and buyers if smoking is permitted in flats and courtyards and on balconies and rooftops.

“What is clear is that because of air circulation in buildings if you smoke in one apartment other people in the building do get some of that smoke in their air,” Bloomberg said.

Hizzoner said the city wasn’t trying to ban smoking in people’s homes, but he hopes the law would lead to more smoke-free buildings in the future.

“You’ll have a lot of people in big buildings insisting that the rules change,” the mayor said.

This isn't an outright ban, but it would leave the decision to ban or limit smoking up to the individual apartment buildings. Apartment buildings would face fines for not providing a smoking policy.

It could also spawn additional fees to fumigate/clean apartments left by smokers along the lines of additional fees tacked on to rental cars or leased vehicles that have a smoke smell in them, or for hotel rooms that are supposed to be non-smoking only.

The whole idea is to get people to reduce smoking and exposure to second hand smoke.

This is what Bloomberg is focusing on in the waning years of his administration?

Instead of thinking big and coming up with financing and funding for transit infrastructure to get phase 2 of the Second Avenue Subway line done, he's pushing anti-smoking proposals? This is where he's spending his political capital?

Public health is fine and reducing smoking is laudable, but when the city faces ongoing fiscal problems and needs to greatly expand mass transit and come up with a viable and consistent funding for mass transit and its aging infrastructure, focusing on second hand smoke in apartment buildings isn't getting to the problems that the city really faces in coming years.

The percentage of smokers continues declining, and many smokers see their homes as the last refuge for them to maintain their habit as public spaces allowing smoking have shrunk to nonexistence.

There are so many more pressing needs around the City, including fixing the City's troubled 911 system, and he's fumbling around the edges. That's no way to run things.

Has NYPD Gone Too Far In Surveillance Efforts Looking For Islamic Extremists?

Following the intel failures that led to the US government being unprepared for the 9/11 attacks, the NYPD vastly expanded its intel efforts, including establishing outposts in foreign countries to bring in intel directly from those foreign countries instead of relying solely on the FBI or CIA.

Those surveillance efforts include looking for Muslim extremists in the New York City metro area - including in New Jersey. While the NYPD can claim that they've thwarted numerous plots involving Islamic terrorists since 9/11, there have been several notable failures, including the Times Square bomber, Faisal Shazad. In that case, police didn't know of the plot to attack Times Square with a bomb planted in a SUV. Police learned of the incident after a local vendor alerted police to the smoking vehicle and it was only after conducting standard investigation techniques that Shazad was arrested.

As a result of the revelations about the scope of the surveillance, Muslim groups across the region are speaking out against the NYPD spying efforts, noting that it's a potential civil rights violation. They have a point, and while then-New Jersey Governor Richard Codey was informed of the spying efforts in places like Newark and elsewhere in the state, it doesn't mean that there was sufficient oversight.

Following the NYPD's illegal surveillance of radical groups during the 1970s, the NYPD entered into an agreement in 1985 called Handschu that required oversight of surveillance operations.

The Handschu agreement, as it is often referred to, was established in 1985 after decades of covert NYPD infiltration of activist groups including the New York City chapter of the Black Panthers. It also kept tabs on citizens who had done nothing more than sign a petition to end the Vietnam war, reporting their political positions to potential employers.

The element of the NYPD responsible for this surveillance went through a number of names, including the Italian squad, the black hand squad, and the bureau of special services. Today it is known as the intelligence division.

Handschu restricted the department's powers to monitor political groups, stipulating that police needed information indicating that a crime was being committed in order to investigate political activity. The rules remained in place for over 15 years.

In 2002 the NYPD, under the guidance of former CIA officer Cohen, lobbied to have Handschu's restrictions significantly loosened, following the September 11 attacks of the previous year. The department argued that it could not effectively fight terrorism with the rules in place.

The NYPD largely got what it wanted in 2003, when significant modifications were made to the agreement.

Civil rights attorney Jethro Eisentstein, who is involved in a class action lawsuit against the NYPD in relation to Handschu, says what remains of the agreement is vitally important to the latest revelations concerning the NYPD's surveillance of Muslim communities.

Specifically, Handschu required that surveillance operations must secure a warrant from a three-person panel comprised of two police commissioners and a mayor-appointed civilian. That was modified in 2003 when the panel was reduced to a single person.

It's the reduction of the panel to a single person that opens the door to mischief and it's time to restore a 3-person panel. That wont necessarily eliminate all warrants along these lines, but introduces a level of oversight lacking when you have a single person who is intent upon investigations that might lead to violations of civil rights (to say nothing of accusations of malfeasance).

Mayor Bloomberg and Commissioner Ray Kelly are defending the actions, and Bloomberg calls critics naive. Sorry, but that doesn't quite cut it. While there are indeed serious concerns about terror groups operating in the NYC metro area based on past history (both the 9/11 attackers and the 1993 WTC bombers had ties to the metro area), wholesale spying on an entire community is overbroad. It also reduces the level of trust between the Muslim community that would be willing to work with law enforcement to root out extremists in their midst and actually makes it more difficult to track down those who might be plotting attacks down the line.

On the Destruction of the Susan G. Komen Brand Over Pulling Planned Parenthood Funding

There was no reason that the Susan G. Komen charitable foundation should ever have waded into the mess that it is now in. I'm heartened by the fact that some of the Komen affiliates are rebelling against the central organization's directives:

Komen has said the decision stemmed from newly adopted criteria barring grants to organizations under investigation — affecting Planned Parenthood because of an inquiry by a Republican congressman acting with encouragement from anti-abortion activists.

A source with direct knowledge of decision-making at Komen's headquarters gave a different account, saying the grant-making criteria were adopted with the deliberate intention of targeting Planned Parenthood. The criteria's impact on Planned Parenthood and its status as the focus of government investigations were highlighted in a memo distributed to Komen affiliates in December.

According to the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of repercussions, a driving force behind the move was Karen Handel, who was hired by Komen last year as vice president for public policy after losing a campaign for governor in Georgia in which she stressed her anti-abortion views and frequently denounced Planned Parenthood.

Karen Handel is said to be a driving force behind Komen's decision this week to cut breast-screening grants to Planned Parenthood.

Brinker, in an interview with MSNBC, said Handel didn't have a significant role in the policy change.

Among Komen's affiliates, there were clear signs of discomfort with the decision. All seven Komen affiliates in California, in a joint letter to their congressional delegation, said they were "strongly opposed" to the policy change and were working to overturn it.

"Our commitment to our mission is unwavering," the letter said. "This is a misstep in that journey and ... we will do whatever it takes to do what is right for the health of women and men in California."

Philanthropy experts said it will be difficult for Komen to convince people it wasn't playing politics.

The charity has destroyed its brand all over an attempt by anti-abortion advocates to politicize where funding goes.

A Connecticut chapter has also said that it wont pull funding from Planned Parenthood in that state.

They've alienated half (or more) of the country that supports abortion rights and Planned Parenthood all to cater to the vocal anti-abortion advocates who have joined the ranks of the Komen leadership.

The timeline bears out the politicization of the process within the organization.

Komen changes its policy, claiming that it will no longer fund entities that are under investigation.

That change came after a known anti-abortion activist, Karen Handel, joined Komen in a key leadership role.

Komen announces end of funding to Planned Parenthood affiliates over an ongoing Congressional investigation.

That Congressional investigation is being conducted by a member of Congress whose anti-abortion views are known, and who was doing the investigation at the behest, and on behalf, of other anti-abortion groups.

As a result of the change in policy, Komen will withhold $600k+ in funding from Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood cries foul and a massive fundraising effort ensues to make up shortfall. More than $400,000 is raised within 24 hours, and that doesn't include up to $250,000 in matching donations by New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg.

Komen plays defensive (late at that) claiming that the decision wasn't politically motivated or motivated by anti-abortion views, but insiders claim a different story - that this was motivated by the new hire (Handel).

That you're now seeing other Komen affiliates rebelling against the directive suggests that they see politics in the matter and it undermines their ability to raise funds to ... you know... fight breast cancer.

No matter how you look at this, this whole mess undermines that core mission. Komen has made such a mess of this situation that they can't be trusted on their statements and they will be sure to alienate a significant portion of potential donors no matter what decision they take now (keep the PP funding frozen out, restore it, or some combination of the above). It's a permanent blight on their ability to remain credible.

The charity has taken a word, "investigation", and applied it to political witch-hunts in Congress, and not law enforcement investigations, which is really what Komen ought to be worried about if they're dealing with integrity issues. Congressional investigations are as much about political witch hunts and campaigning as they are about legitimately looking at issues requiring Congressional attention. Planned Parenthood is among the most scrutinized charities in the nation because of the kinds of services they provide, and this is just another excuse to stick it to them.

What really strikes me as particularly galling is that Komen is ignoring actual criminal investigations ongoing at Penn State University, but they continue funding operations there. If this were really about curtailing financing to those entities under investigation, the Penn State funding would have been first up on the chopping block. To me, that says that this was politically motivated, and not merely an attempt to improve Komen's integrity.

Moreover, I have to wonder what would happen if Komen itself came under investigation by Congress for how it spends its money. Would that mean that it would have to divest itself from its monies in the same way that they're acting towards Planned Parenthood?

UPDATE:
In a surprising turn of events, Komen has announced that they will reverse course and will amend their policy to exclude political investigations, which is good news for Planned Parenthood. The whole reason that they sought to exclude Planned Parenthood was precisely because it was the target of a political investigation. Yet, it doesn't mean the end of the mess for Komen though. The fallout will continue for some time to come.

A $440 Million Spat Has Put Future of WTC Museum In Doubt

Leave it to the Port Authority of New York to find yet another way to slow down the reconstruction efforts at Ground Zero. This time, they're claiming that the National September 11 Memorial & Museum Foundation owes them $300 million. The Foundation, whose chairman is none other than Mayor Mike Bloomberg, claims that the Port Authority owes them $140 million. That's a $440 million spread, and one that has brought construction on the museum to a standstill.

The Port Authority, which is responsible for the construction of the museum, claims that the foundation owes it $300 million. The foundation claims that the authority actually owes it $140 million because of delays in the project.

The dispute has been simmering for some time, and the work slowdown was reported in November. Thursday, however, was the first time Mr. Bloomberg and other officials acknowledged that the discord would cause the museum not to open as planned.

“There is no chance of it being open on time,” the mayor said. “Work has basically stopped.”

Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo said recently on a radio program that the Port Authority was “on the verge” of suing the foundation, but the mayor and the Port Authority said on Thursday that negotiations were continuing.

“I’m sure we are going to work something out with the Port Authority,” Mr. Bloomberg said. “They’ve got a difficult budget situation. I’m sympathetic to that.”

The projected September 2012 opening of the museum is no longer feasible, and unless construction resumes quickly, an early 2013 opening would be in doubt as well.

The Port Authority, which has a long history of dragging its feet on reconstruction at Ground Zero, is up to its old tricks. It delayed reconstruction efforts for years while in spats with Silverstein Properties over building the Freedom Tower and then 2, 3, and 4 WTC. It delayed negotiations and reconstruction efforts for the St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church that was destroyed just south of the WTC complex by the collapsing towers.

On top of that is the inability of the Port Authority to contain costs that are within its control. It is currently more than $1.2 billion over budget on the PATH hub construction (a $2.2 billion project that is now costing $3.4 billion and counting).

The Rebuilding of Ground Zero, Part 151

The Freedom Tower (1WTC) is now fast approaching 100 stories, and should top out at over 1,300 feet in the first quarter of next year.

The problems are elsewhere on the site - the WTC National 9/11 museum construction work has come to a standstill over money.

The Port Authority says the memorial and museum foundation owes it millions.

The foundation sees it exactly the other way around.

“You know, it’s hard to see us getting to a courtroom, but if it has to go there, it has to go there,” said Bloomberg on Thursday.

The mayor, who is also foundation chairman, added we have an obligation to make sure that the people who contributed something like $425 million have the memorial and museum built the way they thought it would get done.

Once again, we see the Port Authority fighting with those who are trying to get work done around the site. It's a fight over some $300 million in work that has to be completed before the museum can be opened to the public. Mayor Bloomberg claims that the Port Authority has cut off payments to workers, halting construction, and it would appear that the number of workers on site have declined sharply.

“Construction has come basically to a halt,” the mayor told reporters at an unrelated press conference in The Bronx, disputing the Port Authority's math.

“We don’t think we owe anything," he said. "In fact, we think that the Port Authority actually owes us something like $140 million."

Coleman refuted the mayor’s stop-work claim.

“We are in active negotiations with the city, but construction is ongoing at the Memorial,” he said.

An official familiar with the construction who spoke on the condition of anonymity said there is some work continuing on the site, but that the ranks of workers have dwindled from hundreds to several dozen.

The dispute has become so heated that Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who revealed the cost hike during a radio interview Thursday, said the two sides could wind up in court.

It “is so bad they’re on the verge of litigation, believe it or not,” he said.

So, who owes who the money involved at the heart of the dispute? I can't really tell.

However, there's a looming mess over how the operating budget for the museum will be conducted and whether the museum will have to charge patrons for viewing the museum. It's my longstanding position that the museum should be free to all, and that costs should be recouped from tour bus and parking fees (as done at other venues such as Mount Rushmore).