The NY Times' Michael Kimmelmann has proposed that instead of building the Moynihan Station that would only accommodate Amtrak and leave nearly 500,000 people to deal with the horrible commute through the subterranean Penn Station beneath Madison Square Garden, that the City, MTA, and the Dolans (who own the Garden) should relocate Penn Station and the Garden to the far West Side's Hudson Yards.
A more ridiculous proposal I could not think of. We're talking about moving a major transit hub out of the Midtown hub because the station is ugly and outdated at a time when New Yorkers and New Jerseyeans are complaining about the out-of-control costs for the PATH transit hub at the World Trade Center that would service a fraction of the daily users claimed for Penn Station.
On a more practical level, the move makes no sense since there are no subways other than the soon to be completed 7 Line extension that would reach the site being proposed by Kimmelmann.
The whole point of the Penn Station hub at its current location is that it provides access to a whole host of subway lines, including the 1,2,3,A,C,E, which service more than 140,000 every day (2010 figures). The proposed location would have no connections and leave commuters no options to get to their ultimate destination.
I understand the lure of building a new station/terminal along with a new Garden at the Hudson Yards, but it's a development project that makes little sense on paper or on financial grounds.
UPDATE:
A few further thoughts. The proposed project does nothing to increase the number of tracks or platforms to maximize commuter flow, nor does it do anything about the bottlenecks on either the Hudson River or East River - it doesn't address the need for new tunnels (Gateway on Hudson Side) and apparently 4 tracks are sufficient on the East River. Capacity would be roughly the same.
Meanwhile, the MTA budget on the Fulton Street project that doesn't add capacity is more than twice what was estimated, and the South Street Ferry was likewise overbudget.
Existing infrastructure needs to be overhauled to be sure, and increased capacity needs to be built - the 2d Avenue line for instance for its entire stretch (to Hanover Square), not merely the phase underway from 96th to 63rd Street. All that costs money, and right now, prettifying Penn Station is a low profile compared to what the MTA must do.
Showing posts with label NY Times. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NY Times. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 08, 2012
Monday, January 16, 2012
New York Times Misses Reason Why NJ Transit Is Buying Double Decker Trains
Leave it to the New York Times to ignore the main reason why NJ Transit is committing to purchasing 100 additional double-decker railcars. While the Times focuses on seat width, it's all about maximizing capacity.
The Times focuses on the seat-width and notes that the behinds of passengers has grown and this is in response to the growing backsides of its passengers.
The Bombardier bilevel cars can seat 142 comfortably, while the Comet V single level cars can sit a maximum of 117. The new cars sit 25 people more than the old ones, though some of the older Comet II, III, and IV cars can sit more than the 117 on the Comet V (due to the center door configuration, additional space at the end of each cars for disability seating, and lavatories.
The bilevel cars can functionally carry more people because hate sitting in the middle seat of the 3-2 seat combination found on the single level cars. Commuters would rather stand and block the aisles than make their way into the middle seats. At the same time, passengers look to spill over their belongings on to the middle seat so as to garner additional space to prevent anyone from using the middle seat. During rush hour, that means additional time to board and disembark from the trains.
The double deckers are designed to slightly increase the number of seats compared to the existing single level cars, and to do so in a manner that maximizes the number of people who will sit. There are no 3-seat rows, which means no one gets stuck in a middle seat, and it also makes the aisles wider, easing access. That the seats are slightly wider is almost an afterthought when the purpose is to maximize the number of seats on the cars.
The new double deck cars have a greater capacity than the older cars, and have two additional high level exits to facilitate stops at high level platforms to reduce dwell time. The single level cars often have a third door in the center of the railcar at high level, but those doors are susceptible to problems in cold/snow/ice conditions, and they reduce the number of seats per car. The new cars would solve these problems, and they further reduce the amount of equipment exposed to the elements that may cause problems in extreme weather events.
More people per train means that the trains are more efficient and can get more people through the Hudson River tunnels - a necessity since there's no way to build in additional capacity at this time.
Had the Times sought to focus on the rationale for buying the cars instead of imposing its view that obesity is the impetus for the purchase, they would be doing their readers a service. Instead, the Times put an ideological agenda ahead of the facts.
The Times focuses on the seat-width and notes that the behinds of passengers has grown and this is in response to the growing backsides of its passengers.
Each time an agency decides to purchase new trains or buses, it must consider whether to make its seats wider, knowing that a decision to do so could come at the expense of passenger capacity.Seat width isn't the main reason that these double deckers are being ordered. It's capacity; both per car and per train; you can get more people through the Hudson River tunnels on the bilevel cars than the single level cars, and they are more efficient at handling the crowds.
New Jersey Transit has a five-year plan to add 100 double-decker train cars that have seats 2.2 inches wider than the 17.55-inch seats found in its single-deck trains; the seating configuration has been changed to two seats on either side of the aisle, rather than three on one side and two on the other.
Amtrak intends to introduce “designs that will be able to accommodate the larger-sized passengers” on 25 new dining cars starting next year, said a spokesman, Cliff Cole.
But while transit agencies consider the needs of heavier passengers, they do not always yield to them.
Over the past half-century, the width of New York City subway seats has not changed much, said Marcia Ely, assistant director of the New York Transit Museum. If anything, the seats have occasionally gotten smaller — and immediately encountered resistance.
Joseph Smith, who retired in 2010 as a New York City Transit senior vice president who also oversaw bus operations in the city and on Long Island, said that the agency once had to abandon plans to introduce Mercedes-Benz Citaro buses, which are popular in Europe, after riders complained about too-narrow seats.
The Bombardier bilevel cars can seat 142 comfortably, while the Comet V single level cars can sit a maximum of 117. The new cars sit 25 people more than the old ones, though some of the older Comet II, III, and IV cars can sit more than the 117 on the Comet V (due to the center door configuration, additional space at the end of each cars for disability seating, and lavatories.
The bilevel cars can functionally carry more people because hate sitting in the middle seat of the 3-2 seat combination found on the single level cars. Commuters would rather stand and block the aisles than make their way into the middle seats. At the same time, passengers look to spill over their belongings on to the middle seat so as to garner additional space to prevent anyone from using the middle seat. During rush hour, that means additional time to board and disembark from the trains.
The double deckers are designed to slightly increase the number of seats compared to the existing single level cars, and to do so in a manner that maximizes the number of people who will sit. There are no 3-seat rows, which means no one gets stuck in a middle seat, and it also makes the aisles wider, easing access. That the seats are slightly wider is almost an afterthought when the purpose is to maximize the number of seats on the cars.
The new double deck cars have a greater capacity than the older cars, and have two additional high level exits to facilitate stops at high level platforms to reduce dwell time. The single level cars often have a third door in the center of the railcar at high level, but those doors are susceptible to problems in cold/snow/ice conditions, and they reduce the number of seats per car. The new cars would solve these problems, and they further reduce the amount of equipment exposed to the elements that may cause problems in extreme weather events.
More people per train means that the trains are more efficient and can get more people through the Hudson River tunnels - a necessity since there's no way to build in additional capacity at this time.
Had the Times sought to focus on the rationale for buying the cars instead of imposing its view that obesity is the impetus for the purchase, they would be doing their readers a service. Instead, the Times put an ideological agenda ahead of the facts.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
NY Times Jumps On Solar Panel Eyesore Bandwagon
New Jersey papers like the Record and Star Ledger have been full of complaints about PSE&G's nearly $1 billion project to put solar panels on its power transmission poles in the largest distributed power generation project in the US. Each of the panels would generate 200 watts of power, and together the 200,000 panels would generate 40 megawatts of power. Now, the New York Times weighs in with its own piece about the project.
That's power that doesn't have to come from coal fired or gas burning power plants. It means that on high usage days, those coal and gas plants don't have to kick in to provide peak power. Instead, these panels are providing a steady stream of power into the grid on the days when power is most in demand.
Yet, all too many people are latching on to the fact that the panels are somehow ugly.
Sorry, but they are no more ugly than the transmission poles that deliver the power, and are far less ugly than the endless stream of particulates and emissions from power plants, or the unending stream of coal shipments by rail or barge to power plants.
It may be a harsh realization that these are new panels and installations, but they are going to settle into the background. In reality, this is little more than a rehash of longstanding NIMBY arguments that prevent an honest assessment of power generation and distribution in the US. In other words, these same people claim that they're all for solar power, except when it's in their own backyard so that it would be better if it was located somewhere else.
As for claims that they will somehow unduly influence real estate values, at a time when prices are steady or dropping (as in Fair Lawn where I live - and Bergen County generally), the installation of solar power isn't the driving factor but some homeowners may latch on to the belief that the solar power cells are driving prices down because they can't accept that the real estate market is soft.
That's power that doesn't have to come from coal fired or gas burning power plants. It means that on high usage days, those coal and gas plants don't have to kick in to provide peak power. Instead, these panels are providing a steady stream of power into the grid on the days when power is most in demand.
Yet, all too many people are latching on to the fact that the panels are somehow ugly.
Sorry, but they are no more ugly than the transmission poles that deliver the power, and are far less ugly than the endless stream of particulates and emissions from power plants, or the unending stream of coal shipments by rail or barge to power plants.
It may be a harsh realization that these are new panels and installations, but they are going to settle into the background. In reality, this is little more than a rehash of longstanding NIMBY arguments that prevent an honest assessment of power generation and distribution in the US. In other words, these same people claim that they're all for solar power, except when it's in their own backyard so that it would be better if it was located somewhere else.
As for claims that they will somehow unduly influence real estate values, at a time when prices are steady or dropping (as in Fair Lawn where I live - and Bergen County generally), the installation of solar power isn't the driving factor but some homeowners may latch on to the belief that the solar power cells are driving prices down because they can't accept that the real estate market is soft.
Monday, January 17, 2011
Illinois Wakes Up To Higher Taxes and the New York Times Cheers
Illinois taxpayers are going to be taking on the chin with massive tax hikes enacted by the lame duck legislature. The legislature had hoped that the tax hikes, which include raising the personal income tax from 3% to 5% and the corporate income tax rate from 4.8% to 7%, would raise $7 billion.
The New York Times thinks that this tax hike is a good thing in that it shows that Illinois is finally getting serious about fiscal responsibility. And it thinks that Illinois is somehow a model for righting the fiscal ships of so many other states that are facing massive budget deficits. Yet, its very premise is undercut by its own facts and observations:
The states were spending far more than the revenue they were taking in - regardless of the tax rates that were being imposed. Raising the taxes, which is what states like New Jersey and New York have done in the past did not solve the budget equation.
These states simply continued spending more than their revenues would allow. Over time, that built up massive structural budget deficits that required deficit spending - taking out debt to pay for ongoing operating costs.
The Illinois solution of raising taxes is not going to solve the state's fiscal problems because the state refuses to address the spending component. Years of inadequate control on spending resulted in the deficits, and raising the taxes wont solve the problem either - and the Illinois legislature has already acknowledged as much.
The New York Times thinks that this tax hike is a good thing in that it shows that Illinois is finally getting serious about fiscal responsibility. And it thinks that Illinois is somehow a model for righting the fiscal ships of so many other states that are facing massive budget deficits. Yet, its very premise is undercut by its own facts and observations:
For years, Illinois, like so many states, pretended that it had not fallen off a budgetary cliff. It was spending too much and taking in too little revenue, but every year it would kick its problems into the next. Unable to pay its bills, it finally accepted reality last week and raised taxes on incomes and businesses — a first step toward getting its house in order.Right there in the first paragraph epitomizes the problem with Illinois and other states whose budgets are now massively out of whack.
The action was immediately ridiculed by several governors around the nation who are still pretending that they can cut their way out of the enormous shortfalls they face, without raising taxes. Wisconsin and Indiana predicted a windfall of angry corporations and residents would head their way from Illinois. Even Gov. Chris Christie, the New Jersey Republican, vowed to fly to Illinois to invite businesses there to defect to his state.
That makes great political theater. But businesses and voters in Illinois, and around the country, should take a closer look at the facts and figures, including their own.
After 22 years of not raising income taxes, Illinois saw its budget shortfall grow to $15 billion. It had the lowest state credit rating in the nation, and it wasn’t paying its bills to hospitals and schools.
The Illinois tax rate was low before and remains low for big states. The income tax will rise from a flat 3 percent to a flat 5 percent. That will cause pain at the lower and middle levels of the economic scale, but the state’s millionaires will probably stay put. (The top rate is 10.55 percent in California, 8.97 percent in New Jersey and New York, and 7.75 percent in Wisconsin.)
The states were spending far more than the revenue they were taking in - regardless of the tax rates that were being imposed. Raising the taxes, which is what states like New Jersey and New York have done in the past did not solve the budget equation.
These states simply continued spending more than their revenues would allow. Over time, that built up massive structural budget deficits that required deficit spending - taking out debt to pay for ongoing operating costs.
The Illinois solution of raising taxes is not going to solve the state's fiscal problems because the state refuses to address the spending component. Years of inadequate control on spending resulted in the deficits, and raising the taxes wont solve the problem either - and the Illinois legislature has already acknowledged as much.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
The Rebuilding of Ground Zero, Part 115
The New York Times is back at its old tricks. It's back to questioning the need to build the Freedom Tower, and this time it's focusing on the cost, which is expected to be $3.3 billion.
The author asserts that the cost to maintain the class A space would make the space prohibitive, but that runs counter to the general belief that environmentally responsible building is more efficient and cost-effective in the long run.
Delays in building drove up the cost - and the New York Times has repeatedly questioned the need to rebuild the office space at Ground Zero, even though the Times itself is a real estate company that attempts to sell newspapers with mixed results. The Freedom Tower, which is now one of the hottest properties for prospective companies, would compete directly with the Times' headquarters building in Midtown and would compare favorably to the Times headquarters.
Of course, the Port Authority disagrees with the Times' analysis:
The irony isn't that Durst is involved; it's that there were other real estate organizations that were more than willing to bash the project privately and publicly that had no problem bidding for the management rights to go where the Port Authority didn't want Silverstein Properties. Durst also notes that he opposed Times Square development, before he became integral in the office tower boom around Times Square.
Will the Freedom Tower become profitable for the Port Authority at some point? Yes. Can anyone say with certainty when that will happen? Nope. It depends on a whole boatload of factors, not the least of which is making sure that the rest of Ground Zero is rebuilt so that the area doesn't feel like a perpetual construction zone.
Meanwhile, construction continues all around Ground Zero, and the the 9/11 museum continues to be built around major components recovered from the World Trade Center, including a pair of tridents that used to hold up the exterior of the towers.
You can make out the tridents near the left tower crane in the middle of the construction site - between the two memorial reflecting pools. They are edgewise to the camera, but they are distinguished because they are covered in a white protective film
The author asserts that the cost to maintain the class A space would make the space prohibitive, but that runs counter to the general belief that environmentally responsible building is more efficient and cost-effective in the long run.
Delays in building drove up the cost - and the New York Times has repeatedly questioned the need to rebuild the office space at Ground Zero, even though the Times itself is a real estate company that attempts to sell newspapers with mixed results. The Freedom Tower, which is now one of the hottest properties for prospective companies, would compete directly with the Times' headquarters building in Midtown and would compare favorably to the Times headquarters.
Of course, the Port Authority disagrees with the Times' analysis:
Not surprisingly, the Port Authority disagrees with my analysis. It points to the fact that it has close to $1 billion in insurance proceeds that it is using to defray the cost of the building. And it says its break-even number is much lower than $130 a square foot.Durst criticized the deal, because he was offering his own projects around the city with similar floor plates and class space. Now, he's got a role in a huge project with tremendous upside.
“It is not going to get a typical developer’s rate of return,” conceded Rich Gladstone, the Port Authority’s point man on the project. “But it will be cash-flow positive.” He insisted that the commuters who pay their $8 a day to cross the George Washington Bridge would never have to support 1 World Trade Center. Of course that’s easy to say now, with the building still two years away from completion.
Still, the Port Authority made another recent move intended to ensure the success of the building. It sold a small piece of the equity in 1 World Trade Center — around 5 percent — to the Durst Organization, for a reported $100 million. It is a great deal for Durst, one of the biggest and savviest commercial developers in New York. (It built the Bank of America Tower, for instance.) Its investment values the building at $2 billion, far less than it cost to build, so if it rises in value, Durst gets the upside. And in return for its $100 million, Durst gets to manage the building for the Port Authority, an arrangement that will allow it to reap fees for everything from finding tenants to reconfiguring office space. It is also a deal filled with a certain, undeniable irony, which has not been lost on anybody in New York real estate circles.
You see, Douglas Durst, the company’s 65-year-old patriarch, has been one of the few people willing to criticize 1 World Trade Center on the record. When the Port Authority was negotiating with those government agencies back in 2006, Mr. Durst told The New York Times that saddling “already overburdened taxpayers of New York with the rent necessary to pay for it makes no sense at all.” He even took out advertisements opposing the project.
The irony isn't that Durst is involved; it's that there were other real estate organizations that were more than willing to bash the project privately and publicly that had no problem bidding for the management rights to go where the Port Authority didn't want Silverstein Properties. Durst also notes that he opposed Times Square development, before he became integral in the office tower boom around Times Square.
Will the Freedom Tower become profitable for the Port Authority at some point? Yes. Can anyone say with certainty when that will happen? Nope. It depends on a whole boatload of factors, not the least of which is making sure that the rest of Ground Zero is rebuilt so that the area doesn't feel like a perpetual construction zone.
Meanwhile, construction continues all around Ground Zero, and the the 9/11 museum continues to be built around major components recovered from the World Trade Center, including a pair of tridents that used to hold up the exterior of the towers.
You can make out the tridents near the left tower crane in the middle of the construction site - between the two memorial reflecting pools. They are edgewise to the camera, but they are distinguished because they are covered in a white protective film
Thursday, July 08, 2010
The Rebuilding of Ground Zero, Part 105
Leave it to the New York Times to sound downcast over how the Port Authority had selected the Durst Organization to operate and market the Freedom Tower (1WTC). Let's not forget that the Times is a real estate venture as much as it is a newspaper publication, and its midtown skyscraper headquarters competes with the construction at Ground Zero. The paper had repeatedly downplayed the viability of office space at Ground Zero.
That there was such strong competition for the rights shows the folly in forcing Larry Silverstein out of the project in the first place. He was in a position to get the tower built quicker and yet the Port Authority dragged its feet, leading to delays throughout the site.
But that's all water under the bridge now as the Freedom Tower is now about 25 stories tall.
So, who is the Durst Organization? It's one of the City's largest real estate family ventures, and among its holdings is the nearly completed environmentally friendly Bank of America tower at Bryant Park in NYC and 4 Times Square.
UPDATE:
The Daily News further points out that Doug Durst had a turnaround of his own on the feasibility of the Freedom Tower - he had questioned the feasibility of the project just a few years ago.
The authority’s board met Wednesday and selected Durst over the other finalist, the Related Companies, one of the city’s most prolific developers. The authority and the Dursts plan to negotiate a final agreement over the next 30 days. If the deal is completed, the Dursts will invest at least $100 million for an undisclosed stake in the project and take over leasing and management of the building.Well, the naysayers were wrong - as I'd been saying all along. There was strong competition for the right to manage the site and have a stake in the construction project. That belies the claims that the tower would be a white elephant and remain empty even with a poor real estate market.
The authority figured that it was good at building but would need an expert to lure top-notch tenants from the United States and abroad. In one of the more intriguing possibilities, the publishing giant Condé Nast has expressed interest in moving to 1 World Trade Center from a Durst building in Times Square.
“We’re extremely pleased that some of the most prominent developers in the country saw market value in this world-class office tower, and engaged in an extremely competitive process for a stake in it,” said Anthony R. Coscia, the authority’s chairman. “What is most important is that we reach an agreement that is good for the building, for the World Trade Center site and for the region.”
So far, the Beijing Vantone Industrial Company, a Chinese real estate firm that signed a lease for the 64th through 69th floors, a total of about 190,000 square feet, is the sole private tenant. The authority has preliminary agreements with the state and federal governments for one million square feet.
The authority had explored selling the building in 2007 to a private equity firm, but the recession quickly wiped out that possibility. In January, the authority solicited interest from a select group of developers who might be interested in a partnership deal. Six responded: the Durst Organization; Steven Roth, chairman of Vornado Realty Trust, a national real estate company; Mortimer B. Zuckerman, chairman of Boston Properties and the owner of The Daily News; Brookfield Properties, one of the largest landlords downtown; Hines, an international developer based in Texas; and Stephen M. Ross, chief executive of the Related Companies.
That there was such strong competition for the rights shows the folly in forcing Larry Silverstein out of the project in the first place. He was in a position to get the tower built quicker and yet the Port Authority dragged its feet, leading to delays throughout the site.
But that's all water under the bridge now as the Freedom Tower is now about 25 stories tall.
So, who is the Durst Organization? It's one of the City's largest real estate family ventures, and among its holdings is the nearly completed environmentally friendly Bank of America tower at Bryant Park in NYC and 4 Times Square.
UPDATE:
The Daily News further points out that Doug Durst had a turnaround of his own on the feasibility of the Freedom Tower - he had questioned the feasibility of the project just a few years ago.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
When Is A Secret Policy Not A Secret? When the NY Times Deems It So
When is a secret policy not a secret? When it gets published in the NYT. The more things change, the more they stay the same and it doesn't matter what Administration we're talking about.
The Obama Administration and Gen. Petraeus had ordered a broad expansion of clandestine military activity in an effort to disrupt militant groups or counter threats in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Somalia and other countries in the region, according to defense officials and military documents.
So, what does the Times do? You got it. They published it, based on their sources.
Once again, the Times thinks that its job is to determine the national security policy of the US and that they are the final arbiter of what is necessarily secret and what isn't. Are they putting US troops and US national security at risk? I believe that they are, and they are increasing the risks for blowback.
Yet, there is some good news in all this. I will say that this does give me a better feeling about the Administration's counter-terror operations that they were letting the DoD take on covert ops in the Middle East, although my confidence in the Administration's actual knowledge of ME policy - particularly the operation of terror groups like Hizbullah, Hamas, and the ME peace process leave me scratching my head as if they've never heard of Bernard Lewis, or read anything other than the diplomatic releases that engage in pseudoreality on a regular basis. After all, this is the same Administration that thinks that they can reach out to moderates in Hizbullah, and that Hamas will accept a peace deal with Israel even though that terror group has nothing but the eradication of Israel on its mind.
The Obama Administration and Gen. Petraeus had ordered a broad expansion of clandestine military activity in an effort to disrupt militant groups or counter threats in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Somalia and other countries in the region, according to defense officials and military documents.
The secret directive, signed in September by Gen. David H. Petraeus, authorizes the sending of American Special Operations troops to both friendly and hostile nations in the Middle East, Central Asia and the Horn of Africa to gather intelligence and build ties with local forces. Officials said the order also permits reconnaissance that could pave the way for possible military strikes in Iran if tensions over its nuclear ambitions escalate.Note the word clandestine. That means covert, secret, and otherwise not to be broadcast to the general public.
While the Bush administration had approved some clandestine military activities far from designated war zones, the new order is intended to make such efforts more systematic and long term, officials said. Its goals are to build networks that could “penetrate, disrupt, defeat or destroy” Al Qaeda and other militant groups, as well as to “prepare the environment” for future attacks by American or local military forces, the document said. The order, however, does not appear to authorize offensive strikes in any specific countries.
In broadening its secret activities, the United States military has also sought in recent years to break its dependence on the Central Intelligence Agency and other spy agencies for information in countries without a significant American troop presence.
General Petraeus’s order is meant for small teams of American troops to fill intelligence gaps about terror organizations and other threats in the Middle East and beyond, especially emerging groups plotting attacks against the United States.
So, what does the Times do? You got it. They published it, based on their sources.
Once again, the Times thinks that its job is to determine the national security policy of the US and that they are the final arbiter of what is necessarily secret and what isn't. Are they putting US troops and US national security at risk? I believe that they are, and they are increasing the risks for blowback.
Yet, there is some good news in all this. I will say that this does give me a better feeling about the Administration's counter-terror operations that they were letting the DoD take on covert ops in the Middle East, although my confidence in the Administration's actual knowledge of ME policy - particularly the operation of terror groups like Hizbullah, Hamas, and the ME peace process leave me scratching my head as if they've never heard of Bernard Lewis, or read anything other than the diplomatic releases that engage in pseudoreality on a regular basis. After all, this is the same Administration that thinks that they can reach out to moderates in Hizbullah, and that Hamas will accept a peace deal with Israel even though that terror group has nothing but the eradication of Israel on its mind.
Thursday, April 08, 2010
New York Times Acknowledges Inevitability of Health Care Cost Containment
Cost containment pursuant to the recently passed health care reform package necessarily entails restricting and/or limiting the kinds of care that are available to the public. There is no other way around this, if the goal is to curb costs. It also means that the public will have to learn to accept the word no.
It isn't a guarantee that a stent or bypass will prevent a heart attack, but it might. A whole lot of research has gone into this area, and doctors around the country still counsel their patients to go for the stents and bypass procedures. There are studies in support of stenting and there are those opposed in some cases. It depends on the situation, but
Giving patients more information is a win-win for all involved, but it might not necessarily mean that patients will choose the less-costly option. It simply means that more options will be provided to a patient that may already be bewildered by their situation and has to deal with the stress of a tough medical situation and decisions that affect their lives and those of loved ones.
It's far easier to claim a cost savings from pushing generic drugs where name-brand drugs are in use since they are equivalent medications, but that's a drop in the bucket compared to the whole range of medical procedures now in use.
C-sections are more common because they provide a measure of timeliness (you can schedule a C-section, but a natural birth can occur at any point), but also because doctors may shy away from a natural birth due to concerns over lawsuits and possible complications from childbirth that may render the child disabled in some fashion.
CT scans may be overused, but who's going to determine when they should or shouldn't be used to an even greater degree than they are at present. After all, under the current system, insurers already deny plenty of claims and opt to not reimburse for CT scans and other procedures, so how exactly will the new federal plans constrict and limit the procedures to only those that are necessary when there are already monetary incentives in place to restrict payment for those procedures. That's one of the complaints about insurers at present, and yet the cure for cost containment is even more of the same thing that people already complain about insurers - limiting treatment and diagnostic options.
Managed care became loathed in the 1990s. The recent recommendation to reduce breast cancer screening set off a firestorm. On a personal level, anyone who has made a decision about his or her own care knows the nagging worry that comes from not choosing the most aggressive treatment.Needless care? That's a curious phrase because someone whose options are "needless care" and nothing else will take the "needless care" if that gives the promise of a cure or improved health situation. Even where the options are "needless care" and other treatment choices, the patient may still take "needless care".
This try-anything-and-everything instinct is ingrained in our culture, and it has some big benefits. But it also has big downsides, including the side effects and risks that come with unnecessary treatment. Consider that a recent study found that 15,000 people were projected to die eventually from the radiation they received from CT scans given in just a single year — and that there was “significant overuse” of such scans.
From an economic perspective, health reform will fail if we can’t sometimes push back against the try-anything instinct. The new agencies will be hounded by accusations of rationing, and Medicare’s long-term budget deficit will grow.
So figuring out how we can say no may be the single toughest and most important task facing the people who will be in charge of carrying out reform. “Being able to say no,” Dr. Alan Garber of Stanford says, “is the heart of the issue.”
It’s easy to come up with arguments for why we need to do so. Above all, we don’t have a choice. Giving hospitals and drug makers a blank check will bankrupt Medicare. Slowing the cost growth, on the other hand, will free up resources for other uses, like education. Lower costs will also lift workers’ take-home pay.
But I suspect that these arguments won’t be persuasive. They have the faint ring of an insurer’s rationale for denying a claim. Compared with an anecdote about a cancer patient looking for hope, the economic arguments are soulless.
The better bet for the new reformers — starting with Donald Berwick, the physician who will run Medicare — is to channel American culture, not fight it. We want the best possible care, no matter what. Yet we often do not get it because the current system tends to deliver more care even when it means worse care.
It’s not just CT scans. Caesarean births have become more common, with little benefit to babies and significant burden to mothers. Men who would never have died from prostate cancer have been treated for it and left incontinent or impotent. Cardiac stenting and bypasses, with all their side effects, have become popular partly because people believe they reduce heart attacks. For many patients, the evidence suggests, that’s not true.
Advocates for less intensive medicine have been too timid about all this. They often come across as bean counters, while the try-anything crowd occupies the moral high ground. The reality, though, is that unnecessary care causes a lot of pain and even death. Dr. Berwick, who made his reputation campaigning against medical errors, is a promising (if much belated) selection for precisely this reason.
Can we solve the entire problem of rising health costs by getting rid of needless care? Probably not. But the money involved is not trivial, and it’s the obvious place to start.
It isn't a guarantee that a stent or bypass will prevent a heart attack, but it might. A whole lot of research has gone into this area, and doctors around the country still counsel their patients to go for the stents and bypass procedures. There are studies in support of stenting and there are those opposed in some cases. It depends on the situation, but
Giving patients more information is a win-win for all involved, but it might not necessarily mean that patients will choose the less-costly option. It simply means that more options will be provided to a patient that may already be bewildered by their situation and has to deal with the stress of a tough medical situation and decisions that affect their lives and those of loved ones.
It's far easier to claim a cost savings from pushing generic drugs where name-brand drugs are in use since they are equivalent medications, but that's a drop in the bucket compared to the whole range of medical procedures now in use.
C-sections are more common because they provide a measure of timeliness (you can schedule a C-section, but a natural birth can occur at any point), but also because doctors may shy away from a natural birth due to concerns over lawsuits and possible complications from childbirth that may render the child disabled in some fashion.
CT scans may be overused, but who's going to determine when they should or shouldn't be used to an even greater degree than they are at present. After all, under the current system, insurers already deny plenty of claims and opt to not reimburse for CT scans and other procedures, so how exactly will the new federal plans constrict and limit the procedures to only those that are necessary when there are already monetary incentives in place to restrict payment for those procedures. That's one of the complaints about insurers at present, and yet the cure for cost containment is even more of the same thing that people already complain about insurers - limiting treatment and diagnostic options.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
ACORN Closes Up April 1
ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, the community group linked to multiple scandals including voter registration fraud across the country and was implicated in a series of videos showing workers at multiple offices providing dubious information to videographer James O'Keefe, will shut its doors April 1. It had been on the verge of going bankrupt, but with public opinion turned against the organization and funding way down, the group had no choice but to cease operations.
The New York Times public editor had reviewed the coverage of ACORN and the O'Keefe videos and found that while O'Keefe manipulated the videos, the content did show that multiple workers at multiple offices provided shady information to run various illegal operations out of homes that would have been acquired with assistance of the group.
Bertha Lewis, who was running the group, had been trying to reform the organization since she took over two years ago. Her time is up.
But don't be surprised if this isn't the last we hear of the group or of Ms. Lewis. After all, I would expect the group to be reconstituted in some form to provide similar services down the road. The ACORN spinoff WFP - Workers Family Party - is still active politically in several states, including New York, so there's still political clout to be had.
The New York Times public editor had reviewed the coverage of ACORN and the O'Keefe videos and found that while O'Keefe manipulated the videos, the content did show that multiple workers at multiple offices provided shady information to run various illegal operations out of homes that would have been acquired with assistance of the group.
Acorn’s supporters appear to hope that the whole story will fall apart over the issue of what O’Keefe wore: if that was wrong, everything else must be wrong. The record does not support them. If O’Keefe did not dress as a pimp, he clearly presented himself as one: a fellow trying to set up a woman — sometimes along with under-age girls — in a house where they would work as prostitutes. In Washington, he said the prostitution was to finance his future in politics. A worker for Acorn Housing, an allied group, warned him to stay away from the brothel lest someone “get wind that you got a house and that your girlfriend is over there running a house of women of the night. You will not have a career.”So, while the videos were manipulated by O'Keefe for maximum effect, the ACORN workers themselves must take the blame for providing shady information, including turning a blind eye to criminal activities.
FAIR said that in Brooklyn, O’Keefe and Giles seemed to be telling Acorn staffers that “they are attempting to buy a house to protect child prostitutes from an abusive pimp.” That’s right, but FAIR left out the part about their clear intention to operate a brothel, which the Acorn workers seemed to take in stride, with one warning: “Don’t get caught, ’cause it is against the law.”
Bertha Lewis, who was running the group, had been trying to reform the organization since she took over two years ago. Her time is up.
But don't be surprised if this isn't the last we hear of the group or of Ms. Lewis. After all, I would expect the group to be reconstituted in some form to provide similar services down the road. The ACORN spinoff WFP - Workers Family Party - is still active politically in several states, including New York, so there's still political clout to be had.
Saturday, February 06, 2010
Misleading Headline of the Day
The ride was still harsh in the Roadster Sport I tested, but the adjustable suspension with sport and comfort settings was a mild improvement. With its Lotus-derived wishbone suspension and low center of gravity — not to mention the 992-pound lithium-ion battery pack over its rear wheels — the Roadster Sport hugs the road like a go-kart.The problem is the headline.
All Roadsters use an air-cooled A.C. induction motor rated at 215 kilowatts — the equivalent of 288 horsepower — but the Sport gets a boost to 295 pound-feet of torque over the regular Roadster’s 273 pound-feet, making acceleration stronger from 20 m.p.h. to 50 m.p.h.
The automatic transmission has a single speed. Tesla says that accelerating to 60 m.p.h. in this 2,723-pound dart takes less than 3.7 seconds; the top speed is electronically limited to 125 m.p.h.
The Sport option also includes forged wheels and Yokohama ultrahigh-performance tires that provide a level of grip you’d need a racetrack to fully exploit.
Brembo brakes will effectively stop the car, but the immediate regenerative braking when taking your foot off the accelerator is more than enough to whoa it down (to about 3 m.p.h.). The car can be driven at least 90 percent of the time with just your right foot.
There's no such thing as a carbon-free car, even if it's an electric car. In most parts of the country, electricity is generated from coal or oil, so the electricity is not carbon-free. The car might have no tailpipe emissions, but that doesn't mean carbon-free.
It just means that the emissions are diverted to someone else's problem - the power utilities. It also doesn't take into account the energy needed to build the vehicles.
The only way to get a truly carbon-free vehicle for tailpipe emissions purposes is to have electric cars that are using electricity wholly generated from alternative sources and nuclear power. That's it. Until then, we're just deluding ourselves that we have carbon-free power for electric cars. We're only shifting around the emissions burdens to someone else - and as more electric cars hit the road, the need to build new power plants will increase. That means that until the US gets serious about building new nuclear power plants and transmission lines, we're stuck with the same old problems with emissions.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Grading the New York Times On a Curve
In their Golden Globes wrapup, the New York Times takes potshots at the weight of several of the stars on the red carpet, including Jennifer Aniston, Courtney Cox, and Kate Hudson.
I got to see parts of the Golden Globes as Mrs. Lawhawk had the show up on the tv in the background and I have no idea what show the Times' reporters were watching, but all three looked great. And to criticize them because of a little weight is asinine. Better to have a few curves than appear anorexic. It's little wonder that so many people have image issues and weight control issues when media outlets run stories such as this.
Speaking of curves, Christina Hendricks (from Mad Men) also comes in for scrutiny in particular, and they attempt to make their editorial point in writing and by distorting Hendricks' photo (aka photoshopping) to make her appear even bigger than in real life - expanding the proportions of her body).
Seriously? WTF? I've never seen the show, but she's a hottie. The photo on the left is the one taken from the NY Times site, and the one on the right appears to be the original photo. The photo on the right appears to have more natural colors and significantly different proportions, while the photo on the left has exaggerated certain features as if to make a point about the dress she wore.
UPDATE:
As per the comments at Gothamist and Lidane at LGF, the NYT also went after actor Michael C. Hall for wearing a knitted cap during the event (he won Best Performance by an Actor In A Television Series) . Turns out that Hall is being treated for Hodgkin's lymphoma. Stay classy NYT.
I got to see parts of the Golden Globes as Mrs. Lawhawk had the show up on the tv in the background and I have no idea what show the Times' reporters were watching, but all three looked great. And to criticize them because of a little weight is asinine. Better to have a few curves than appear anorexic. It's little wonder that so many people have image issues and weight control issues when media outlets run stories such as this.
Speaking of curves, Christina Hendricks (from Mad Men) also comes in for scrutiny in particular, and they attempt to make their editorial point in writing and by distorting Hendricks' photo (aka photoshopping) to make her appear even bigger than in real life - expanding the proportions of her body).Seriously? WTF? I've never seen the show, but she's a hottie. The photo on the left is the one taken from the NY Times site, and the one on the right appears to be the original photo. The photo on the right appears to have more natural colors and significantly different proportions, while the photo on the left has exaggerated certain features as if to make a point about the dress she wore.
UPDATE:
As per the comments at Gothamist and Lidane at LGF, the NYT also went after actor Michael C. Hall for wearing a knitted cap during the event (he won Best Performance by an Actor In A Television Series) . Turns out that Hall is being treated for Hodgkin's lymphoma. Stay classy NYT.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Another NYT Scare Article On Water Quality
The New York Times continues its assault on drinking water in the US. It again claims that much of the country is drinking unsafe levels of chemicals and contaminants, many of which exceed safe health levels, even if they are below legal limits.
Of course, the Times ignores the costs of trying to even comply with these claimed levels or even attempting a cost benefit analysis that would show the folly of trying to lower the allowable limits on dozens of chemicals, many of which are naturally occurring. The law of diminishing returns also plays a role given the levels of some of the chemicals involved.
In Fair Lawn, we've got pretty clean water, and many of the chemicals in the water are actually by-products of the chlorination process to kill bacteria and other organisms. There is also naturally occurring incidences of certain radioelements, such as Radium, which are omnipresent in drinking water taken from certain geological formations (like aquifers located in granite formations). None are above the legal limits, and six are above what is claimed to be a healthy level.
Actually, looking at the chart, only four are above. One of the six items is actually a combination of two items that are naturally occurring in the region (radium 226/228).
Another item, uranium, is below the health limit in all the tests checked, and yet the Times counts it as being above the healthy level. The legal limit is 30 ppb and the health limit is 5 ppb. While all tests in Fair Lawn showed the presence of uranium, the maximum (and average) observed was 2 ppb. Neighboring Ridgewood has a similar water quality, and here too the observed uranium count was an average (and maximum) of 2 ppb, and yet lumped in with the chemicals above health guidelines.
Elevated presence of some of these chemicals could lead to a higher risk of certain diseases, including bladder cancer (even though the typical incidence is about 71,000 new cases a year and 14,000 deaths per year - out of a population of 350 million).
It would cost tens of billions of dollars annually to filter out these chemicals and contaminants, which municipalities simply can't afford. After all, there are thousands of municipalities failing to adhere to the current standards, so lowering allowable limits on existing chemicals or adding additional contaminants to those being tested will only add to the burden.
Stories like this get readers to thinking whether their tap water is safe. The Times claims that while the Safe Water Drinking Act hasn't been updated in years and many water systems are technically in compliance with the Federal Law, science suggests that they are increasing risks of illnesses due to concentrations of various chemicals and contaminants.
So, readers then decide to go and buy bottled water and/or buying home filter systems instead of trusting the quality of tap water, and which leads to still more pollution in the form of plastics that have to be created/recycled, and the energy costs related to the bottling of that water.
And that's assuming the Times is being honest with its methodologies, which I'm not sure of after seeing the issues with the uranium reporting above. Nevada, which was home to the overwhelming majority of nuclear weapons tests, has some interesting results. Uranium was found in various samples of the Las Vegas Valley water, with an average of 4.25 ppb and a maximum of 5.1 ppb. The health limit is 5 ppb, so only one test produced a higher than health guidelines outcome; yet the Times lumped that in with other chemicals as being within legal limits but not health guidelines.
Carson City correctly lists uranium as violating health and legal limits as samples exceeded both. The Times properly categorizes Carson City, but not the other cities checked.
That's just fishy, and bears further examination.
Of course, the Times ignores the costs of trying to even comply with these claimed levels or even attempting a cost benefit analysis that would show the folly of trying to lower the allowable limits on dozens of chemicals, many of which are naturally occurring. The law of diminishing returns also plays a role given the levels of some of the chemicals involved.
In Fair Lawn, we've got pretty clean water, and many of the chemicals in the water are actually by-products of the chlorination process to kill bacteria and other organisms. There is also naturally occurring incidences of certain radioelements, such as Radium, which are omnipresent in drinking water taken from certain geological formations (like aquifers located in granite formations). None are above the legal limits, and six are above what is claimed to be a healthy level.
Actually, looking at the chart, only four are above. One of the six items is actually a combination of two items that are naturally occurring in the region (radium 226/228).
Another item, uranium, is below the health limit in all the tests checked, and yet the Times counts it as being above the healthy level. The legal limit is 30 ppb and the health limit is 5 ppb. While all tests in Fair Lawn showed the presence of uranium, the maximum (and average) observed was 2 ppb. Neighboring Ridgewood has a similar water quality, and here too the observed uranium count was an average (and maximum) of 2 ppb, and yet lumped in with the chemicals above health guidelines.
Elevated presence of some of these chemicals could lead to a higher risk of certain diseases, including bladder cancer (even though the typical incidence is about 71,000 new cases a year and 14,000 deaths per year - out of a population of 350 million).
It would cost tens of billions of dollars annually to filter out these chemicals and contaminants, which municipalities simply can't afford. After all, there are thousands of municipalities failing to adhere to the current standards, so lowering allowable limits on existing chemicals or adding additional contaminants to those being tested will only add to the burden.
Stories like this get readers to thinking whether their tap water is safe. The Times claims that while the Safe Water Drinking Act hasn't been updated in years and many water systems are technically in compliance with the Federal Law, science suggests that they are increasing risks of illnesses due to concentrations of various chemicals and contaminants.
So, readers then decide to go and buy bottled water and/or buying home filter systems instead of trusting the quality of tap water, and which leads to still more pollution in the form of plastics that have to be created/recycled, and the energy costs related to the bottling of that water.
And that's assuming the Times is being honest with its methodologies, which I'm not sure of after seeing the issues with the uranium reporting above. Nevada, which was home to the overwhelming majority of nuclear weapons tests, has some interesting results. Uranium was found in various samples of the Las Vegas Valley water, with an average of 4.25 ppb and a maximum of 5.1 ppb. The health limit is 5 ppb, so only one test produced a higher than health guidelines outcome; yet the Times lumped that in with other chemicals as being within legal limits but not health guidelines.
Carson City correctly lists uranium as violating health and legal limits as samples exceeded both. The Times properly categorizes Carson City, but not the other cities checked.
That's just fishy, and bears further examination.
Friday, November 06, 2009
Lame Duck Corzine Finally Takes Action
The lame duck Governor of New Jersey, Jon Corzine may have finally done something fiscally responsible for a change. He's called for a freeze in $400 million in spending that the state simply doesn't have. I guess we should be thankful for token measures and ignore the fact that the state budget passed for FY2009-2010 should never have included that spending in the first place, and that last year's budget (FY2008-2009) should have been vastly scaled back because of all the warning signs about the slowdown in the economy.The latest round of cuts would not have been necessary, or could have been scaled back had the state budget been much more realistic in the first place.
Taxpayers saw through all this when they sent Corzine packing.
Now, Republican Chris Christie will have to do more than talk to get the state out of this fiscal black hole. He's going to have to put teeth into property tax reform and control profligate state spending.
Governor Corzine is preparing $400 million in budget cuts and wants legislators to shelve any new spending measures during their upcoming lame duck session, all to offset revenue losses blamed on the poor economy.Meanwhile, the NY Times is operating as the excuse factory for Corzine's loss in the election, claiming that Corzine was aloof and unlucky. Sorry, but the Times can't make excuses for Corzine proffering a tax and spend plan that raised sales taxes to cover a property tax rebate only to sharply curtail the rebate limiting its effect on hundreds of thousands of homeowners throughout the state (and Corzine actually called for the elimination of the rebate during the budget negotiations). No, luck has nothing to do with Corzine's situation. Corzine failed to bring the state's spending in line with revenues. He did nothing to reduce state spending, and instead oversaw an increase in state spending at both the state level and watched as local municipalities continued to raise property taxes through loopholes he allowed in the property tax scheme he proffered. The state regularly rubber stamped increases above and beyond the 4% "cap" he put in place, making the cap a symbolic gesture. A hard cap would have forced municipalities to make hard decisions that they've refused to make for years; just as surely as the state had refused to make hard decisions on funding of programs that were unjustified or didn't work to achieve the goals anticipated. The stimulus funding granted the state papered over the inability of the state to control its spending.
A hiring freeze and travel restrictions will also remain in place as revenue collections continue to come in below original budget projections, the governor said Thursday.
"My administration will continue to live up to our responsibility to maintain a fiscally balanced budget during the next two months," said Corzine, who lost Tuesday’s election to Republican Chris Christie. "These cuts will be tough but necessary choices that need to be addressed now."
Last month, state Treasurer David Rousseau said revenue collections for the first three months of the budget year that began in July 2009 were off by $190 million, or about 3 percent.
Corzine, in response, said workforce reductions, a new employee pharmacy benefits program and debt refinancing were already generating savings during the first quarter. But he also asked department heads to identify $200 million in possible cuts that could be enacted on Dec. 1.
The governor said revenue collections in October were also off, and he called for up to $400 million in cuts to be ready by Dec. 1.
Taxpayers saw through all this when they sent Corzine packing.
Now, Republican Chris Christie will have to do more than talk to get the state out of this fiscal black hole. He's going to have to put teeth into property tax reform and control profligate state spending.
Wednesday, November 04, 2009
The Media As Watchdog ... Or Lapdog?
Gawker scores with an in depth investigation into how the media covered the Spitzer mess last year and has been combing through more than 1,000 pages of emails between Spitzer's press secretary Christine Anderson, communications director Errol Cockfield, and journalists covering the expanding scandal. The results aren't pretty:
The e-mails total 1,300 pages, and we're still reading through the stack of paper. Any other interesting finds will be going up in subsequent posts. But what we've seen so far has been surprising: You'd think that, with blood in the water, the traditional coziness that develops between official flacks and the beat reporters who have to talk to them every day would break down into some kind of last-man-standing slugfest. But in the Spitzer case, the opposite happened. The revelations upended the worlds of both reporter and flack alike, and the uncertainty, long hours, and breakneck pace of the scandal actually seemed to throw them together as they worked toward what seems, if you read the e-mail exchanges, like a common goal of getting the news out and behind them.The next time you hear someone say that the media is a watchdog, remember this.
Which makes sense on a human level. But sometimes good reporting—especially of the government watchdog variety—requires an inhuman suspension of compassion. The infractions documented in these e-mails are misdemeanors, but—in addition to being an unvarnished peek inside the media machinery—they're indicative of the creeping social and professional alliances that inevitably develop between PR handlers and their overworked, easily manipulated charges in the press corps. And they give the lie to the myth of the vigilant watchdog press that keeps the government on its toes. Next time you hear New York Times editor Bill Keller claim that newspapers are uniquely situated to do the "hard, expensive, sometimes dangerous work [of] quality journalism," remember that his reporter broke the story of Spitzer's dalliances with prostitutes. But also remember the time his reporter e-mailed Gov. Paterson's flack to request permission to call Paterson's former mistress.
This first installment documents the shocking amount of control that Keller's Times allowed Anderson, a former Good Morning America producer and PR veteran of the Clinton White House, to exercise over his paper's coverage. After bringing Anderson's world down around her head by breaking the story, Times reporters previewed portions of their stories with her before publication, asked for her permission before contacting sources, and let her tell them how to characterize its reporting in the paper.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
NY Newsday To Start Weekly Online Access Charge
NY Newsday, a newspaper that focuses on Long Island and New York City, will begin imposing a $5 per week charge on access to its website for many of its news items.
Newsday will continue offering free access to those who have paper subscriptions or who have Internet access via Cablevision, which owns the paper.
Newspapers are struggling to find ways to build revenues as the newspaper industry has failed to figure out how to drive revenue in an age of open access to news items and advertising revenues have fallen off a cliff due to e-bay and Craigslist.
Newsday is hardly the first paper to charge for content. The New York Times attempted to charge for access via its Times Select service, that put may of its op-eds and columnists behind a pay to view wall. It was a miserable failure for the Times, and they dropped the charge.
The Wall Street Journal continues to charge for some of its services, but that's the exception for news content rather than the rule.
Given the way that the Newsday site is arranged, I doubt anyone will miss visiting the news site in favor of other sites and the paper will be forced to reconsider.
Newsday will continue offering free access to those who have paper subscriptions or who have Internet access via Cablevision, which owns the paper.
Newspapers are struggling to find ways to build revenues as the newspaper industry has failed to figure out how to drive revenue in an age of open access to news items and advertising revenues have fallen off a cliff due to e-bay and Craigslist.
Newsday is hardly the first paper to charge for content. The New York Times attempted to charge for access via its Times Select service, that put may of its op-eds and columnists behind a pay to view wall. It was a miserable failure for the Times, and they dropped the charge.
The Wall Street Journal continues to charge for some of its services, but that's the exception for news content rather than the rule.
Given the way that the Newsday site is arranged, I doubt anyone will miss visiting the news site in favor of other sites and the paper will be forced to reconsider.
Monday, September 14, 2009
One Year Since NY Times Called On Rangel To Step Down
Today marks one year since the New York Times called on Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) to step down as chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. In the intervening year, Rangel has remained as chairman precisely because he's insulated from any criticism by his fellow Democrats. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wont do anything until the ethics committee takes action, which so happens to include three members who received campaign contributions from Rangel (who also happens to be one of the top fundraisers for Democrats in Congress).
The malfeasance that the Times considered sufficient to demand him stepping down has increased since then:
The malfeasance that the Times considered sufficient to demand him stepping down has increased since then:
- Failed to reveal more than $3 million in business income;
- Failed to report income from sales of real property;
- Failed to report income from Punta Cana hacienda;
- Failed to pay property taxes on Glassboro, New Jersey property for several tax quarters ($159.39 is most recent tax due for 2Q and 3Q 2009);
- Failed to report $430,000 in stock transactions;
- Had to dramatically revise House filings to show hundreds of thousands of dollars in transactions - unreported assets that concealed anywhere from $38,000 to $116,000 in income for 2007 alone;
- Failed to report a checking account that was worth between $250,000 and $500,000.
- Failed to report income to the IRS; paid $10,000 in back taxes but no penalties or interest was apparently assessed (Rep. John Carter (R-TX) introduced the Rangel rule to codify the IRS treatment of Rangel, but it was defeated by House Democrats);
- Pay to play with AIG and CCNY over the financing of the Charles Rangel Center for Public Service;
- Broke House rules on reporting trips;
- Broke New York State Rent Stabilization laws by owning four units and using one as an office (anyone else in that situation would have been booted from the properties);
- Alternatively broke New York State Rent Stabilization laws or lied on mortgage application documents claiming primary residence status for either the rent stabilized apartments in Harlem, or other properties - the outcome of which is that he received better mortgage terms, or enabled himself to unjustly enrich himself over the span of decades by obtaining a rent stabilized apartment at a time when there's a regular shortage of affordable housing in Manhattan;
- Fails to meet New York State Rent Stabilization income guidelines with new revelations that he's making more than $175,000 - and quite likely much more than that based on hidden income over the years (rent stabilization means that he's saving nearly $4,000 a month over market rates for same property - a perk that means he's saving $48,000 a year or more than the gross income of many of his constituents);
- Paid lawyers hired to unravel Rangel's tax situation $121,000 from his campaign committee funds, which violate federal election laws (Rangel claims that he got a waiver from FEC; FEC says otherwise);
- Unjustly received a homestead property tax deduction on a D.C. property (again claiming primary residence status);
- Gave contract to his son's company worth nearly $80,000 for building websites that were non-functional and whose value experts believe cost no more than $100; and
- Failed to report imputed income from long term use of House parking lot to store vehicles, which was also a violation of House ethics guidelines.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Rushing Headlong Into Confrontation
Mirhussein Mousavi's supporters still believe that the rally scheduled for today is on. The New York Times reports via a Facebook page that this is the case. Isn't technology grand?
Why exactly does anyone need the New York Times when the protesters are able to get their information out via alternative sources like Facebook and Twitter?
The Times is relying on these sources like everyone else because the regime is busy thwarting media outlets from reporting, and has attempted to do the same to Facebook, Twitter, and other online outlets with little success.
So, while there are concerns over the reliability of Twitter, Facebook, and other online sources, they remain the only way anyone knows what's really going on inside Iran.
That's both exhilarating and troubling since people are showing their resourcefulness to get news out but it means that rumors will often go unchallenged for days and misconceptions about events.
What is troubling is that several bloggers operating inside Iran are silent this morning, which is a first since the crisis began a week ago.
The 4pm local time rally means that it should be underway in Tehran (7am EDT).
The fact that the Iranian Guardian Council is offering a recount of 10% of the vote is meaningless at this point. That would be insufficient to deter Mousavi's opponents, and would do nothing to assuage Iranians that the election results were legitimate.
Iranian media reports that Mousavi and the other defeated candidates were offered to appear before the Guardian Council to discuss their complaints, but Mousavi declined to show.
So far, no photos of the demonstrations have been uploaded to Flickr or video posted to YouTube or LiveLeak. When they do, I'll post.
UPDATE:
Twitter is abuzz with postings from Iran claiming that the Basiji have been busy intimidating protesters and invading homes in Isfahan.
The BBC has increased the number of satellites used to thwart Iranian efforts to jam signals.
The Guardian's live coverage is superior to those of other outlets, but they too are relying on second and third hand information:
Photos allegedly of the Basiji and police preparing for the demonstrations:
UPDATE:
Twitterings reporting large crowds, and police to match.
UPDATE:
Tweet Grid is one way to try and keep up with the deluge of information.
UPDATE:
Multiple reports claiming that tear gas is being used to disperse protesters. Reports coming via AP and al Jazeera.
UPDATE:
Multiple reports of gunfire as well, no word on injuries, but I'm sure that reports will begin filtering in as to such injuries.
There's also a so-far unconfirmed report that there was a bomb blast at a mosque where Ali Khamenei preaches.
UPDATE:
Nothing official on the reported bomb blast at the Khomenei mosque, but it could have been the government itself using the incident as a pretext to crack down hard against Mousavi's supporters with extreme prejudice. With such a lack of reliable information, anything is possible. Stay tuned.
UPDATE:
A bomb blast has been confirmed at Khomeni square. No word on injuries, but Iran state TV apparently set up cameras to tape before blast occurred. That's likely a coincidence.
This video claims to have been taken today:
UPDATE:
More video via BBC.
UPDATE:
More video and information (in French). The videos are pretty self-explanatory.
UPDATE:
UPDATE:
Is this Iran's Tiananmen Square moment?
Why exactly does anyone need the New York Times when the protesters are able to get their information out via alternative sources like Facebook and Twitter?
The Times is relying on these sources like everyone else because the regime is busy thwarting media outlets from reporting, and has attempted to do the same to Facebook, Twitter, and other online outlets with little success.
So, while there are concerns over the reliability of Twitter, Facebook, and other online sources, they remain the only way anyone knows what's really going on inside Iran.
That's both exhilarating and troubling since people are showing their resourcefulness to get news out but it means that rumors will often go unchallenged for days and misconceptions about events.
What is troubling is that several bloggers operating inside Iran are silent this morning, which is a first since the crisis began a week ago.
The 4pm local time rally means that it should be underway in Tehran (7am EDT).
The fact that the Iranian Guardian Council is offering a recount of 10% of the vote is meaningless at this point. That would be insufficient to deter Mousavi's opponents, and would do nothing to assuage Iranians that the election results were legitimate.
Iranian media reports that Mousavi and the other defeated candidates were offered to appear before the Guardian Council to discuss their complaints, but Mousavi declined to show.
So far, no photos of the demonstrations have been uploaded to Flickr or video posted to YouTube or LiveLeak. When they do, I'll post.
UPDATE:
Twitter is abuzz with postings from Iran claiming that the Basiji have been busy intimidating protesters and invading homes in Isfahan.
The BBC has increased the number of satellites used to thwart Iranian efforts to jam signals.
The Guardian's live coverage is superior to those of other outlets, but they too are relying on second and third hand information:
1.25pm:
The entrance to Tehran's Revolution Square, is blocked by fire engines, according to AP. It also reports that riot police have surrounded Tehran University.
Several unconfirmed tweets claim that protesters have clashed with the police. Some claim the police have used batons.
1.10pm:
The BBC's Jon Leyne, in Tehran, admitted on the World Service that he cannot tell if the rally is actually happening, because of the restrictions on reporting. The Guardian's reporters in Iran are in no position to comment either.
1pm:
An unconfirmed Tweet from a usually reliable source says Mousavi is walking from his Ettelaat office to the Ministry of Interior and that 10,000 people are with him.
Photos, claimed to be taken today, show several rows of riot police.
The BBC says its witness have seen hundreds of riot police in Enghelab Square.
Al-Jazeera also reports a heavy police presence, but points out that it is difficult to verify because phones are jammed.
Photos allegedly of the Basiji and police preparing for the demonstrations:
UPDATE:
Twitterings reporting large crowds, and police to match.
UPDATE:
Tweet Grid is one way to try and keep up with the deluge of information.
UPDATE:
Multiple reports claiming that tear gas is being used to disperse protesters. Reports coming via AP and al Jazeera.
UPDATE:
Multiple reports of gunfire as well, no word on injuries, but I'm sure that reports will begin filtering in as to such injuries.
There's also a so-far unconfirmed report that there was a bomb blast at a mosque where Ali Khamenei preaches.
UPDATE:
Nothing official on the reported bomb blast at the Khomenei mosque, but it could have been the government itself using the incident as a pretext to crack down hard against Mousavi's supporters with extreme prejudice. With such a lack of reliable information, anything is possible. Stay tuned.
UPDATE:
A bomb blast has been confirmed at Khomeni square. No word on injuries, but Iran state TV apparently set up cameras to tape before blast occurred. That's likely a coincidence.
This video claims to have been taken today:
UPDATE:
More video via BBC.
UPDATE:
More video and information (in French). The videos are pretty self-explanatory.
UPDATE:
UPDATE:
Is this Iran's Tiananmen Square moment?
Monday, May 04, 2009
Systemic Failure in Newspaper Business
The New York Times Co., which owns the Boston Globe and other properties, is contemplating shutting down the Globe's newspaper business within a matter of weeks. The Times simply can't find a way to make money, and they're selling anything and everything that either has a chance of making money to keep the Times afloat or canning entire businesses because they have no chance of making money.
Some see this as a ploy to extract more concessions from the unions that continue to ignore reality and the failings of the newspaper business model.
The Times has already engaged in a sale-leaseback of its headquarters in New York City to raise capital, and it looks like they're trying to sell the company's share of the Boston Red Sox to majority owner John Henry. That's probably the most profitable sector of the company, which has lost most of its share value and net worth over the past few years. Editorial decisions haven't helped either, as the paper essentially caters to less than 50% of the marketplace.
Instapundit thinks that this is a lose-lose situation for the unions and the company. I see it as poetic justice for the leftists at the paper who now have to play union-breaker after hollering about how other businesses and industries treat unions so poorly. The reality is that the unions and management here have done such a poor job adjusting to the economic situation, that both are going to suffer all the more for it.
Some see this as a ploy to extract more concessions from the unions that continue to ignore reality and the failings of the newspaper business model.
The Times has already engaged in a sale-leaseback of its headquarters in New York City to raise capital, and it looks like they're trying to sell the company's share of the Boston Red Sox to majority owner John Henry. That's probably the most profitable sector of the company, which has lost most of its share value and net worth over the past few years. Editorial decisions haven't helped either, as the paper essentially caters to less than 50% of the marketplace.
Instapundit thinks that this is a lose-lose situation for the unions and the company. I see it as poetic justice for the leftists at the paper who now have to play union-breaker after hollering about how other businesses and industries treat unions so poorly. The reality is that the unions and management here have done such a poor job adjusting to the economic situation, that both are going to suffer all the more for it.
Friday, April 03, 2009
Audacious Stupidity by Bill Keller
Bill Keller is the editor of the New York Times. This nitwit has the audacity to claim that the dire fiscal situation of the Times (whose stock price is on life support and the company has most of its value since Keller took over), is in the same ballpark as a campaign to save Darfur refugees.
Leave it to the New York Times editor to make that comparison.
Comparing saving the newspaper to the Darfur situation is audacious stupidity, although one notes that for all the talk about saving Darfur refugees, few on the left are willing to put US military power on the line to insure that Darfur refugees are actually saved. It's all so much lip service, and if the Times is relying on the same kind of campaign to save the paper, he's much dumber than he lets on since the money is harder to come by these days.
The Times can't afford its newspaper publishing business, and its value is derived more from one-shot leasing deals for its Manhattan headquarters building than for the revenue derived from selling leftist newsprint.
UPDATE:
Hot Air notes that Keller fired off an email to clarify his statement, and attacks those who read it as a literal equivocation between Darfur and saving newspapers:
What's silly is that someone who is supposedly so precise with words as an editor of the New York Times could be so imprecise so as to garner the response he now derides.
Leave it to the New York Times editor to make that comparison.
NEW York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller equated the Gray Lady to a PBS pledge drive, claiming readers have offered to donate money to keep the Times alive.Well, given the way that newspapers are folding all over the country and that General Motors is on the verge of bankruptcy, Keller's comparison between the opening of the new newspaper and a Pontiac dealership is an apt on. Both aren't likely to survive given the business climate.
Keller was speaking at Stanford University to dedicate a new building for the campus newspaper -- an event he likened to a "ribbon-cutting" for "a new Pontiac dealership."
The bombastic broadsheet editor went on to equate the keep-the-Times-alive movement to the cause of starving African refugees, saying, "Saving the New York Times now ranks with saving Darfur as a high-minded cause."
Keller said he had little use for Web sites like Google and Drudge Report: "If you're inclined to trust Google as your source for news -- Google yourself."
Keller's comments come as the Times sat down with the Newspaper Guild Wednesday in their first serious bargaining session to figure out how to extract $4.5 million in savings from the newspaper company's unionized workforce.
Comparing saving the newspaper to the Darfur situation is audacious stupidity, although one notes that for all the talk about saving Darfur refugees, few on the left are willing to put US military power on the line to insure that Darfur refugees are actually saved. It's all so much lip service, and if the Times is relying on the same kind of campaign to save the paper, he's much dumber than he lets on since the money is harder to come by these days.
The Times can't afford its newspaper publishing business, and its value is derived more from one-shot leasing deals for its Manhattan headquarters building than for the revenue derived from selling leftist newsprint.
UPDATE:
Hot Air notes that Keller fired off an email to clarify his statement, and attacks those who read it as a literal equivocation between Darfur and saving newspapers:
“I think it’s pretty obviously a reflection of my mild astonishment at the earnest fervor with which some people have suddenly embraced the cause of saving newspapers,” Keller wrote. “That’s matched only by my mild astonishment at the silly literal-mindedness with which some people read my occasional public comments.”Funny, but I don't hear too many people calling for newspaper bailouts other than newspaper people themselves. Many bloggers are more than comfortable letting papers die, even if it means they lose the very reporting that provides plenty of blogging fodder.
What's silly is that someone who is supposedly so precise with words as an editor of the New York Times could be so imprecise so as to garner the response he now derides.
Monday, March 09, 2009
NYT Raising Cash By Selling and Leasing HQ
Things are definitely tight at the New York Times. They've had to take a second mortgage out on their shiny new headquarters, but that's not enough given the burn rate at the paper. The paper has sold 21 floors to an investment company, which the Times is now leasing back over a period of 15 years.
I wonder if the Times will last that long:
I wonder if the Times will last that long:
The New York Times Co. said Monday it gained more financial flexibility by selling 21 floors of its headquarters building in midtown Manhattan for $225 million.HT: mattm at LGF
The newspaper will lease back the space from the buyer, investment firm W.P. Carey & Co., under a 15-year contract.
Times shares jumped 21 cents, 5.2 percent, to $4.28 in morning trading.
Like other publishers, the Times company has been seeking different ways of raising cash to pay off debt as advertising sales decline. The company has $350 million in loans coming due over the next two years. Total debt stood at $1.1 billion at the end of 2008.
The company slashed its dividend last fall and suspended it entirely in February, saving $133 million in annual expenses. In January, the company got a $250 million infusion from Mexican telecommunications billionaire Carlos Slim, though the Times is paying Slim a hefty interest rate of 14 percent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)