June 15, 2003

DO YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ARE VOTING FOR II?

By James Eugene*

By now you must figure that I have exhausted all of my complaints about government and its little quirks. But oh, you would in fact be wrong. One of my other complaints is about laws that get passed that an agency either cannot enforce, will not enforce or should not enforce.

There are many types of laws designed to promote behavior that never get enforced. Let's pick a few. For example, there is the seat belt law. Now when was the last time you heard of anyone being ticketed for not having a seat belt on? Actually, that is the wrong question. The right question is when have you EVER heard of anyone being ticketed for not having a seat belt on? Yet, I have no problem with the seat belt law. The seat belt law received sufficient publicity, it promoted good behavior, it has gradually led to an increase in seat belt use and it has not harmed anyone. So while the law is not, in fact, being enforced, it serves a purpose for educational and behavioral purposes and should be enforced when appropriate (like when stopping a car for other violations).

But what happens when a law is proposed that will require enforcement from an agency that cannot enforce it. Let's take, for example, a bill introduced in the City Council that required a permit for scaffolding work. Now everyone agrees that the Department of Buildings is a bureaucratic mess. Moreover, everyone agrees that the New York City building code is the most confusing in the nation. So the solution is…. pile more laws into the building code and allow a slow bureaucracy to enforce them. I can see it now, a builder is ready to go, after filing getting all his permits when wait…. he has to get one more permit for scaffolding and the Buildings Department just refuses to give it to the builder. You laugh, but obtaining permits is one of the biggest problems at a Department decimated by turnover and oversensitive from corruption scandals.

Recently, the New York media has taken to blitzing the Bloomberg Administration for its own blitzing of the City with tickets. One of the more popular and amusing pieces was one in the New York Post where a business owner was ticketed for having an awning that actually advertised its business' phone number on the awning. It winds up that this phone number was in violation of an obscure provision of the Zoning Resolution. Forget about the fact that just about every awning in New York City has a phone number on it, such a provision should never exist in the first place. But legislators get a bit zealous. They draft legislation to solve something that annoys some small group of constituents (and ten people in this City can make a legislative tidal wave if it suits a politician's purpose), then years later, people forget why the law ever existed in the first place. Mayor Billionaire has had little mercy for the awning owner and others, saying, in his lust for revenue, that they should follow the law.

Mayor Billionaire, I have an idea. I am proposing an audit of Bloomberg, LP. We are going to check every little action that it has taken over the past year, and then we are going to fine it for any violations. But to make you understand the pain of a small business owner, you must pay the fine multiplied by one million. So if a fine is $25 dollars usually, you must pay $25 million. Such an arrangement would make you understand the feelings of small businesses. And, oh, by the way, it would be a great revenue raiser. However, by the end of the ticketing of Bloomberg, L.P., the City may need to send you a dunning letter.

It was so much fun to see the Post ripping Governor Patacuomo for failing to fight the Silver-Bruno budget. But in the end, the fight would have been just too damaging to Patacuomo.

First Problem: Patacuomo can't claim much in this budget. Everyone knows it is a Silver/Bruno budget. So when there is a ribbon cutting ceremony, does Patacuomo go to it, when everyone knows he hated this budget? If he fought the budget in the courts, well, then he could not. Even now, he faces a problem in getting people to recognize his initiatives but why have this problem for three more years.

Yes, three more years. Imagine fighting this in Court, bringing Bruno and Silver closer together as allies. This could have led to the …

Second Problem: Patacuomo fighting for his political relevancy. Patacuomo is not the first governor to have his budget shunted aside. Hugh Carey had the same problem. But Carey was in his last year of his reign. Patacuomo has three and one-half years left in government. He needs to keep some sort of relevancy. If Bruno and Silver remain budget pals, Patacuomo could be on the sidelines for the rest of his term. We might as well have the governor resign and call the new governor "Governor Silver Bruno" or "Governor "Bruno Silver" (either way works and they can alternate the name every year if they want to share the glory).

Imagine if the budget passes every year without the Governor's input. Where does this leave Pataki? Does he simply keep to his "job killing taxes" pitch and remain irrelevant? Does he propose increasing taxes and look like a weakling?

In a year, we will be able to determine if the Governor is officially dead or just politically comatose. For the political chameleon who was George Pataki, the next year will determine his entire political future. So many pundits have said to never rule out Patacuomo. Let me be the first to say: I am ruling him out.

Editor's Note: James Eugene will take a break for the summer. That opens the door to submissions on NYC politics. Send your "Inside the Big Apple" column to epeditor@emirepage.com.

* James Eugene is the pseudonym of a veteran of NYC government affairs. Inside The Big Apple will appear exclusively on the Empire Page. If you want to send tips or column ideas to James Eugene, email them to jameseugene@empirepage.com.