Tuesday, March 3, 2009
What is this?
My name is Derek Sacerdote and I am running for New York City Council District 46, as a Libertarian. I have taught science at Samuel J Tilden High School since 1998. As you might imagine, choosing to run as a third party candidate is a major obstacle. Many people don't know much about "third" parties, and those who do often don't have confidence enough to use their vote on one. I chose the Libertarian Party because I feel it best represents what New York City, like America believes in: that government has specific roles which it should fulfill well, but that government should not intrude into or control every aspect of citizens' lives. My hope is that using technology such as facebook, and blogspot, I will be able to spread ideas and converse with voters through a more comfortable, convenient (and easy) format which voters can use at their leisure. What's different about using the internet is that unlike a pamphlet, you can actually talk to me and to other voters about issues. Let's face it: people have busy lives and can't spare time to go to speeches or meetings. We now live our lives by keeping up with people for a few short seconds online when we get the chance. Why let a busy life keep you from exercising your political rights?
What is a libertarian?
Well, rather than have me try and summarize it, anyone who wants to know what the Libertarian Party is about can easily check the website at www.lp.org, or simply look it up on wikipedia. Growing up and paying attention in social studies class at Midwood High School, as well as in required courses in Politics at Brooklyn College (I was a Biology Major), I got the idea that voting was a rare opportunity, as far as most of the world sees it. Silly as it sounds, I believed that by not voting I might be somehow giving up some freedom.But whenever I got to the voting booth, except in some rare cases, I never really wanted to vote for any of the candidates. Many times I walked out after barely having turned any levers. I often agreed with many things that each of the major candidates said, but disagreed with alot as well. If I vote for progress in one area, I am also supporting a backslide in others. The Democratic Party has traditionally stood for personal freedom and civil rights, though recently not as much. However, most Democratic candidates also favored lots of taxes and wasteful unnecessary spending. The Republican Party has traditionally favored lower taxes and less waste, though recently not so much. However, most Republican candidates are weak on civil rights and somewhat antiquated in their ideas about personal freedom. Why couldn't a candidate ever be liberal on social issues and conservative on fiscal issues? Can't someone stand up for constitutional rights, diversity, equality, and justice......... without taxing us to death and wasting our money? Well they could, but they would have to be a Libertarian.
Why does New York need Libertarianism?
Well let me tell you about my experiences. Throughout my early life I tried to start businesses. Most failed, in part because I wasn't good at what I was doing, or because others did it more efficiently. But alot of the time, laws got in the way. It seemed to me that laws existed which made it extremely difficult for someone with no money to get a foothold. Meanwhile, established businesses and government monopolies had an unfair legislative advantage. If all this seems complicated and abstract, let me give some examples.
Eight years ago I bought a pickup truck in order to expand my small landscaping and pond business, which until then I had been running out of a toyota corolla, and if the tree couldn't fit, a bicycle. Unfortunately the dealer HAD to issue me commercial plates with the sale. Not knowing anything, I parked the truck at home every night. Needless to say, the city targeted that truck like blood in a shark tank. In two weeks, I collected over $300 worth of tickets, because I was parking on the street overnight. Now my parents had a driveway. But what if they didn't? What about someone, alone, who tries to start out? The law assumes that anyone who has a business must also be able to afford off street parking, possibly before even making the first cent, which only serves as another nonmarket barrier to new business.
Next, I tried working as a tutor. I thought nothing about stapling signs on telephone poles, with tear offs at the bottom. What's the harm? Apparently alot, in the eyes of the city. Not only do they rip off the signs, but, according to an anonymous caller, the city can also fine individuals, the figure at the time being $75 per sign. Geez welcome to the neighborhood.
There's cash value in trash. The city sells many recyclable items for cash after garbage collection. All my life I and friends have salvaged interesting items from the trash: antique tables, aquariums, TVs, plants, computers. It was exciting to learn that recyclers actually pay cash for metal. You've probably seen people pushing carts around full of bicycle parts, old pipes, and siding. Many others pick up cans and bottles for the refund. This seemed to me another great way to earn extra income, especially for someone out of work, or who has no startup cash, or doesn't speak english. It turns out that it's all illegal. The city, in its infinite greed, has decided that every item tossed on the street or abandoned on the curb is city property. If you pick something out of a neighbor's trash, the city considers that to be STEALING. If you use a car or truck, they can and will impound it.
Now why do I care? Compared to many others, I had opportunities. I have a college degree, speak english, and I'm a citizen. And part of the time I was trying small businesses, I also had a job teaching public school. Now what about someone who had NO money, or doesn't speak english, or moved here as a refugee? What about a native New Yorker with a family who suddenly gets laid off? It must be unimaginably difficult, as it is. The city needs not get in the way and make it harder. In many parts of the world, a motivated person can survive by "hustling." He or she can take the family car or van and run it as a taxi. He or she can put up a table on a busy street and sell something. He or she can start a home business and place ads on the street. In New York, once the financial capital of the world, a person in dire straits has very few options other than begging. Not only does it rob people of dignity, but it brings us all down, ethically, and economically.
But this is only part of the story. Civil rights are waning in New York City. Despite the NYPD's celebrated program of CPR, or "Courtesy, Professionalism, and Respect," the Department continues to deliver one outrageous mishap after another, adding to a cemetary of unarmed victims shot in botched investigations or mistaken identity. Once known as a capital of social progress, peaceful demonstrations can no longer occur in New York City. Dozens of arbitrary excuses come from City Hall whenever a protest march is deemed inconvenient. I'm sure I read the first amendment correctly. If this weren't enough, protesters have often been arrested, detained without access to lawyers, and had their personal property confiscated or destroyed...... with no recourse. Friends and family continue to tell me stories, each one more incredible than the last. I watch television reports of protests quashed in Asia, and in the Middle East, to where we are supposedly exporting freedom, then switch to local news and see an increasingly frightening similarity.
Then there are the "little things." Innocent civilians are frequently detained by police under what are known as "terry stops" in which a police may conduct a pat-down for "suspicious behavior." Sadly there exists no specific litmus test for what constitutes "suspicious," and officers are left to interpret the rules arbitrarily. All too often, suspicion is based on some form of demographic profiling, rather than any specific behavior. During the detainment, and I speak from experience here, it is not unusual for the police officer to use a disrespectful tone, make unsubstantiated accusations, and threats. All of this leads to a growing sense of mistrust between civilians and law enforcement. Furthermore, the excessive number of nuisance or "quality of life" laws on the books creates more unnecessary and often unpleasant interactions between police and civilians. Sadly, many parents teach their children fear of, rather than confidence in, the police.
Many libertarian ideas, I realize, can create fear. Truly, freedom can be a frightening thing. Be aware, however of the slippery slope of what comedian Bill Maher has called "mission creep," or the ever widening definition of what government feels is within it's role. Acceptance of one unnecessary restriction can lead to a second law, then a third. Many cities, particularly in Europe, have experimented with expanded personal freedom without any dramatic negative social implications.
The recent economic news has also created alot of fear. Many of us, as well, are beneficiaries of government waste. I certainly believe it would be unethical not to honor existing labor contracts or to significantly change the rules under which standing employees work. However, the recent fiscal crisis forces us to reexamine whether or not we can continue to offer the same packages to new hires. Every budget cut announcement brings out rallying citizens demanding that there be no cuts in service, no layoffs, and no tax increase. Do any of the math. It's asking the impossible. People are very generous when they handle other people's money. And so it goes in the city budget. By implementing financial incentives to cut waste, it will be possible to create an army of penny pinchers. In fact, to just use the school system as an example, I believe it would be cheaper and more effective to pay individual employees more, and spend significantly less on supplies, with the understanding that the autonomy is on the employees to economize and purchase as few or as many as needed, with whatever portion of their salary they wish to devote. The same can be done for many city agencies.
With regard to the notion of options for citizens, they really do help all parties. The US Postal Service employees perhaps felt threatened as deregulations permitted the growth of competitors such as UPS and Fedex. However, these companies have helped USPS to stay competitive in quality, service and price. I believe the same could be true for city run monopolies if competition is permitted as well.
Eight years ago I bought a pickup truck in order to expand my small landscaping and pond business, which until then I had been running out of a toyota corolla, and if the tree couldn't fit, a bicycle. Unfortunately the dealer HAD to issue me commercial plates with the sale. Not knowing anything, I parked the truck at home every night. Needless to say, the city targeted that truck like blood in a shark tank. In two weeks, I collected over $300 worth of tickets, because I was parking on the street overnight. Now my parents had a driveway. But what if they didn't? What about someone, alone, who tries to start out? The law assumes that anyone who has a business must also be able to afford off street parking, possibly before even making the first cent, which only serves as another nonmarket barrier to new business.
Next, I tried working as a tutor. I thought nothing about stapling signs on telephone poles, with tear offs at the bottom. What's the harm? Apparently alot, in the eyes of the city. Not only do they rip off the signs, but, according to an anonymous caller, the city can also fine individuals, the figure at the time being $75 per sign. Geez welcome to the neighborhood.
There's cash value in trash. The city sells many recyclable items for cash after garbage collection. All my life I and friends have salvaged interesting items from the trash: antique tables, aquariums, TVs, plants, computers. It was exciting to learn that recyclers actually pay cash for metal. You've probably seen people pushing carts around full of bicycle parts, old pipes, and siding. Many others pick up cans and bottles for the refund. This seemed to me another great way to earn extra income, especially for someone out of work, or who has no startup cash, or doesn't speak english. It turns out that it's all illegal. The city, in its infinite greed, has decided that every item tossed on the street or abandoned on the curb is city property. If you pick something out of a neighbor's trash, the city considers that to be STEALING. If you use a car or truck, they can and will impound it.
Now why do I care? Compared to many others, I had opportunities. I have a college degree, speak english, and I'm a citizen. And part of the time I was trying small businesses, I also had a job teaching public school. Now what about someone who had NO money, or doesn't speak english, or moved here as a refugee? What about a native New Yorker with a family who suddenly gets laid off? It must be unimaginably difficult, as it is. The city needs not get in the way and make it harder. In many parts of the world, a motivated person can survive by "hustling." He or she can take the family car or van and run it as a taxi. He or she can put up a table on a busy street and sell something. He or she can start a home business and place ads on the street. In New York, once the financial capital of the world, a person in dire straits has very few options other than begging. Not only does it rob people of dignity, but it brings us all down, ethically, and economically.
But this is only part of the story. Civil rights are waning in New York City. Despite the NYPD's celebrated program of CPR, or "Courtesy, Professionalism, and Respect," the Department continues to deliver one outrageous mishap after another, adding to a cemetary of unarmed victims shot in botched investigations or mistaken identity. Once known as a capital of social progress, peaceful demonstrations can no longer occur in New York City. Dozens of arbitrary excuses come from City Hall whenever a protest march is deemed inconvenient. I'm sure I read the first amendment correctly. If this weren't enough, protesters have often been arrested, detained without access to lawyers, and had their personal property confiscated or destroyed...... with no recourse. Friends and family continue to tell me stories, each one more incredible than the last. I watch television reports of protests quashed in Asia, and in the Middle East, to where we are supposedly exporting freedom, then switch to local news and see an increasingly frightening similarity.
Then there are the "little things." Innocent civilians are frequently detained by police under what are known as "terry stops" in which a police may conduct a pat-down for "suspicious behavior." Sadly there exists no specific litmus test for what constitutes "suspicious," and officers are left to interpret the rules arbitrarily. All too often, suspicion is based on some form of demographic profiling, rather than any specific behavior. During the detainment, and I speak from experience here, it is not unusual for the police officer to use a disrespectful tone, make unsubstantiated accusations, and threats. All of this leads to a growing sense of mistrust between civilians and law enforcement. Furthermore, the excessive number of nuisance or "quality of life" laws on the books creates more unnecessary and often unpleasant interactions between police and civilians. Sadly, many parents teach their children fear of, rather than confidence in, the police.
Many libertarian ideas, I realize, can create fear. Truly, freedom can be a frightening thing. Be aware, however of the slippery slope of what comedian Bill Maher has called "mission creep," or the ever widening definition of what government feels is within it's role. Acceptance of one unnecessary restriction can lead to a second law, then a third. Many cities, particularly in Europe, have experimented with expanded personal freedom without any dramatic negative social implications.
The recent economic news has also created alot of fear. Many of us, as well, are beneficiaries of government waste. I certainly believe it would be unethical not to honor existing labor contracts or to significantly change the rules under which standing employees work. However, the recent fiscal crisis forces us to reexamine whether or not we can continue to offer the same packages to new hires. Every budget cut announcement brings out rallying citizens demanding that there be no cuts in service, no layoffs, and no tax increase. Do any of the math. It's asking the impossible. People are very generous when they handle other people's money. And so it goes in the city budget. By implementing financial incentives to cut waste, it will be possible to create an army of penny pinchers. In fact, to just use the school system as an example, I believe it would be cheaper and more effective to pay individual employees more, and spend significantly less on supplies, with the understanding that the autonomy is on the employees to economize and purchase as few or as many as needed, with whatever portion of their salary they wish to devote. The same can be done for many city agencies.
With regard to the notion of options for citizens, they really do help all parties. The US Postal Service employees perhaps felt threatened as deregulations permitted the growth of competitors such as UPS and Fedex. However, these companies have helped USPS to stay competitive in quality, service and price. I believe the same could be true for city run monopolies if competition is permitted as well.
Economic Reform
As I said in my own story, I believe that at the heart of independence is the freedom to try different things, especially if times are difficult and you are having trouble making ends meet. In many other countries, and even in this country long ago, it was possible to pull yourself up through nontraditional employment, whether it was as a vendor, a handyman, housekeeper, porter, or a driver. Today you could add mechanic, appliance repairman, or various computer related jobs to that list. The freedom to set a personal schedule and make money through several small jobs is all the opportunity many people need. Sadly, the city has cracked down on nontraditional employment for years. To drive a taxi, legally, for example, one must obtain a $200,000 medallion permit. Rather than make the business more egalitarian, this has enabled successful garages to accumulate medallion cabs which are rented to new drivers at rates that almost prohibit their advancement. And this is the result of city laws. A small scale contractor has to go through an obstacle course in order to dispose of a small quantity of job site trash. Even a family advertising a garage sale on the corner lamppost risks a fine. When does anyone say "Stop?"
Last year I used to seek interesting items in the trash as I drove my pickup around: old aquariums, furniture, and scrap metal to sell for a few cents a pound. I was stopped by an armed sanitation cop and warned that I could be fined $2000 for "stealing" trash. When I asked, hypothetically about the little old lady who pushes a shopping cart around looking for cans.... he replied that she was fair game as well. It turns out that since she didn't purchase the soda, she is not legally entitled to the 5cent refund. You can't make this stuff up.
It doesn't seem to me a coincidence that the city is stopping people from entering industries where it already has a monopoly. For example, the city charges $2 a bus ride and claims to be broke, while privateers can charge 12-25% less and make a profit. Rather than streamline the operation and cut frills funded by taxpayers many of whom who don't even ride the bus, the city would rather criminalize the competition. Its definitely easier than competing fairly.
I am not saying that all economic problems can be solved with nontraditional work, but for those who have skills and drive to succeed this way, nontraditional work can serve as a dignified means to provide for basic needs, and even advance. The city should not interfere who are capable of success, and then focus its resources on empowering those who are not.
I would support the following:
1. Less regulation of nontraditional employment
2. Deregulate private cab and bus service to provide business opportunity and needed competition for the MTA
3. Encourage green, sustainable and economically valuable pedicab industry
4. Recognize economic value of street vending
5. Repeal laws which classify curbside rubbish as city property, in order to stimulate private scrap collection and salvaging business
6. Encourage for profit recycling of all recyclables to promote opportunity, improve lifestyle of poor, and clean streets.
7. Deregulate street based advertising and allow public posts to be used as trading posts and community message boards.
8. Permit easier public access to city dumps, especially for small scale construction
Last year I used to seek interesting items in the trash as I drove my pickup around: old aquariums, furniture, and scrap metal to sell for a few cents a pound. I was stopped by an armed sanitation cop and warned that I could be fined $2000 for "stealing" trash. When I asked, hypothetically about the little old lady who pushes a shopping cart around looking for cans.... he replied that she was fair game as well. It turns out that since she didn't purchase the soda, she is not legally entitled to the 5cent refund. You can't make this stuff up.
It doesn't seem to me a coincidence that the city is stopping people from entering industries where it already has a monopoly. For example, the city charges $2 a bus ride and claims to be broke, while privateers can charge 12-25% less and make a profit. Rather than streamline the operation and cut frills funded by taxpayers many of whom who don't even ride the bus, the city would rather criminalize the competition. Its definitely easier than competing fairly.
I am not saying that all economic problems can be solved with nontraditional work, but for those who have skills and drive to succeed this way, nontraditional work can serve as a dignified means to provide for basic needs, and even advance. The city should not interfere who are capable of success, and then focus its resources on empowering those who are not.
I would support the following:
1. Less regulation of nontraditional employment
2. Deregulate private cab and bus service to provide business opportunity and needed competition for the MTA
3. Encourage green, sustainable and economically valuable pedicab industry
4. Recognize economic value of street vending
5. Repeal laws which classify curbside rubbish as city property, in order to stimulate private scrap collection and salvaging business
6. Encourage for profit recycling of all recyclables to promote opportunity, improve lifestyle of poor, and clean streets.
7. Deregulate street based advertising and allow public posts to be used as trading posts and community message boards.
8. Permit easier public access to city dumps, especially for small scale construction
Civil Rights and NYPD Procedure Reform
Every so often, like many of you, I get stopped by police. Often the exchange is polite, or even pleasant. Like many of you, however, I have been cursed at, spoken to with sarcasm, and baseless accusations, and stereotyped. My hair is long. My car is old. I'm a white guy riding a bicycle in a black neighborhood. For whatever reason, I stand out. Not blending in should not feel like a crime. Furthermore, a minor traffic violation need not be treated like a major felony. Lights need not flash for 15 minutes. A broken tail light should not automatically warrant a 50 state arrest warrant search. At very least, police should be polite, respectful, and treat all people they stop as innocent. I ask no more than what is expected of any employee at any job.
Either police brutality is on the rise or small video cameras are becoming more common. Regardless, something needs to be done. It shouldn't be necessary for a bystander to catch something in order for police misconduct to be monitored. Cameras, preferably always running and externally controlled, should monitor police cars and precincts. Once again, I think the behavior of those who are authorized to carry weapons should be held to at least as high a standard as that of employees at any job, or even civilians on the street for that matter.
It is frustrating when you think someone has infringed on your rights. It is doubly frustrating when the only recourse the city provides is a phone number where you can speak to that same person's supervisor..... and buddy. Those who can't afford lawyers or be on the phone during work hours are left to feel essentially hopeless to fight for their rights. The city should be advocating for the people in the same way it protects its own.
Where in the Constitution does it say that first amendment rights require a permit? There is a disturbing recent trend in New York to prohibit demonstrations and protests. The power to regulate who can march and where and when is tantamount to regulation of free expression. It is a dangerous start down a road which will blur the distinction between free societies and those against which we are fighting around the world.
I would support:
1. Greater transparency of NYPD operation
2. Give more power to civilian review boards to investigate police brutality, racial profiling, and other civil rights abuse
3. Require demeanor standards for NYPD in all its interactions with the public, and develop clearer standards for terry stops.
4. Implement greater use of cameras in police vehicles, on uniforms, and in precincts to monitor interactions between police and civilians
5. Civil liberties and legal counseling available through 311 system to enable civilians to get clear answers
6. End red tape and unconstitutional barriers to free protests
Either police brutality is on the rise or small video cameras are becoming more common. Regardless, something needs to be done. It shouldn't be necessary for a bystander to catch something in order for police misconduct to be monitored. Cameras, preferably always running and externally controlled, should monitor police cars and precincts. Once again, I think the behavior of those who are authorized to carry weapons should be held to at least as high a standard as that of employees at any job, or even civilians on the street for that matter.
It is frustrating when you think someone has infringed on your rights. It is doubly frustrating when the only recourse the city provides is a phone number where you can speak to that same person's supervisor..... and buddy. Those who can't afford lawyers or be on the phone during work hours are left to feel essentially hopeless to fight for their rights. The city should be advocating for the people in the same way it protects its own.
Where in the Constitution does it say that first amendment rights require a permit? There is a disturbing recent trend in New York to prohibit demonstrations and protests. The power to regulate who can march and where and when is tantamount to regulation of free expression. It is a dangerous start down a road which will blur the distinction between free societies and those against which we are fighting around the world.
I would support:
1. Greater transparency of NYPD operation
2. Give more power to civilian review boards to investigate police brutality, racial profiling, and other civil rights abuse
3. Require demeanor standards for NYPD in all its interactions with the public, and develop clearer standards for terry stops.
4. Implement greater use of cameras in police vehicles, on uniforms, and in precincts to monitor interactions between police and civilians
5. Civil liberties and legal counseling available through 311 system to enable civilians to get clear answers
6. End red tape and unconstitutional barriers to free protests
Education Reform
The city spent several million dollars renovating labs at the school where I work, installing equipment not related to subjects we teach, replacing workable furniture with inferior junk...... and wouldn't give science teachers the "authority" to select, perhaps, $300 worth of lab supplies. Yet the superintendent's office screened our requests and sent (months later) poor quality approximations. What more do I need to say?
Teachers use curricula written for different places and different times. As politically incorrect as it may be to say it, many students just aren't going to college. Treating every student as college bound, even if well intentioned, serves no one. I have seen schools discard materials from vocational courses, such as wood shop or metal shop. This is sad. All adults would benefit from a greater variety of skills, either if they will use them for a job right after school, or simply to allow them greater independence in their personal life.
Many students graduate from public school and realize that they are not ready for college. This is because standards have been watered down- horribly. Schools themselves and their leadership are evaluated largely by grades and test scores. Those numbers, however, are derived within the schools, by teachers who are often influenced to "be easy on kids." There is too much subjectivity in self evaluation. It would be like a defendant selecting his own jury. The opposite, specifically letting the city evaluate schools, is not fair either. That's like packing a jury with friends of the plaintiff. Schools and students need honest, fair evaluation, This evaluation needs to be made as fair as possible by including teachers, parents, students, administrators, and the community in the evaluation process. It also needs to take into account the fact that not all students present with the same level of challenge. Some students require more time and effort than others.
Schools by and large do not give students what they need, for work or for life. Many students realize that they are struggling for a diploma by taking courses which will not specifically help them. Resources are wasted when truants abuse free transportation passes and free meals and barely attend class. Parents who have largely given up on their children treat public school as if it is day care. The public is complicit but allows schools no flexibility to modify for this expanded role. Anger and conflict develops with older students who know that a chemistry class is holding them back from a future which may only have a minimum wage job in store. Education should provide tools for independence, but sadly it falls short.
I would support:
1. More autonomy in purchasing for schools and teachers, coupled with financial incentives for frugality.
2. Better assessment of need prior to giving away food and other materials in order to avoid waste
3. Cutoff of transportation passes for long term truants
4. Progressive charge for serial class repeaters, as well as programs outside the regular school day or calendar
5. Statistically valid, off site evaluation of standardized exams and overall school performance
6. Implementation of practical curriculum, such as job training, for students who will not attend school immediately after high school.
7. Inclusion of representative active teachers in all upper level reform discussions
8. Promotions of privately run educational seminars on public spaces or in public buildings, to both make back money for taxpayers and build independence
9. Property tax rebates for those who are not using public school system in lieu of vouchers
10. Direct parental incentives/disincentives for academic achievement of children to offset cost of remediation
Teachers use curricula written for different places and different times. As politically incorrect as it may be to say it, many students just aren't going to college. Treating every student as college bound, even if well intentioned, serves no one. I have seen schools discard materials from vocational courses, such as wood shop or metal shop. This is sad. All adults would benefit from a greater variety of skills, either if they will use them for a job right after school, or simply to allow them greater independence in their personal life.
Many students graduate from public school and realize that they are not ready for college. This is because standards have been watered down- horribly. Schools themselves and their leadership are evaluated largely by grades and test scores. Those numbers, however, are derived within the schools, by teachers who are often influenced to "be easy on kids." There is too much subjectivity in self evaluation. It would be like a defendant selecting his own jury. The opposite, specifically letting the city evaluate schools, is not fair either. That's like packing a jury with friends of the plaintiff. Schools and students need honest, fair evaluation, This evaluation needs to be made as fair as possible by including teachers, parents, students, administrators, and the community in the evaluation process. It also needs to take into account the fact that not all students present with the same level of challenge. Some students require more time and effort than others.
Schools by and large do not give students what they need, for work or for life. Many students realize that they are struggling for a diploma by taking courses which will not specifically help them. Resources are wasted when truants abuse free transportation passes and free meals and barely attend class. Parents who have largely given up on their children treat public school as if it is day care. The public is complicit but allows schools no flexibility to modify for this expanded role. Anger and conflict develops with older students who know that a chemistry class is holding them back from a future which may only have a minimum wage job in store. Education should provide tools for independence, but sadly it falls short.
I would support:
1. More autonomy in purchasing for schools and teachers, coupled with financial incentives for frugality.
2. Better assessment of need prior to giving away food and other materials in order to avoid waste
3. Cutoff of transportation passes for long term truants
4. Progressive charge for serial class repeaters, as well as programs outside the regular school day or calendar
5. Statistically valid, off site evaluation of standardized exams and overall school performance
6. Implementation of practical curriculum, such as job training, for students who will not attend school immediately after high school.
7. Inclusion of representative active teachers in all upper level reform discussions
8. Promotions of privately run educational seminars on public spaces or in public buildings, to both make back money for taxpayers and build independence
9. Property tax rebates for those who are not using public school system in lieu of vouchers
10. Direct parental incentives/disincentives for academic achievement of children to offset cost of remediation
Fiscal Waste and Abuse
If you park your car 1 minute past the time limit, or 1 inch over the line, you can be fined. No mercy. No excuses. How is it, then, that a city can collect property tax, sales tax, income tax, parking fines, and sanitation fines and go a decade in some cases without reparing certain streets or sidewalks? How is it that property owners are fined for leaving cans on the curb on the wrong day, but the city is free to "miss" garbage pickups? The city can pay officers to drive around at 3am and look for expired registration stickers, but somehow they can't pay anyone to notice that there are 3 foot craters in the road.
This is because there is no competition and no accountability. The lowly bottle deposit law comes with a bill of rights. However, there is no set of obligations which residents can expect the city to fulfill. We are paying for certain services. If we were paying a private company for garbage collection or road repair, they would have to hustle, because we could take our business elsewhere. No competition plus no accountability guidelines equals fiscal waste and abuse. Money is taken from one neighborhood and is used elsewhere. The public should have the power to force the city to live up to its own obligations. For example, when roads go unrepaired past a deadline, or if trash pickups are "missed," the customers should be refunded in the form of tax rebates. We should have a right to take our business elsewhere.
City services should be no frills and utilitarian. Like the post office. The US Postal Service is a model government agency because it finances its whole operation through postage and products it sells. People who don't use it are not paying for it. The city should do the same. Extravagances like decorative floor tiles in the subway are a slap in the face to taxpayers who need to stretch their money. Money could be saved by the city in the same way you do so in your own household. Use less. Hold off on unnecessary purchases or renovations. Comparison shop.
The green movement has been presented to us as an inconvenience with a high price tag. This makes no sense. Using less and recycling saves money. People should be encouraged to visit for-cash recycling centers rather than fined for mixing trash incorrectly. Inform people about value and trash would disappear. Create a rate plan for garbage pickup based on number of containers, with a financial incentive to throw away less stuff.
Property ownership ends at the property line. Try parking your car on the sidewalk if you don't believe me. The city taxes us for the upkeep of public areas yet forces adjacent owners to deal with cleaning and repair. At the same time, it authorizes sanitation agents to peer into your driveway or front walk and throw $100 fines at you because there is an empty cup or newpaper on the ground. For the residents, the deal is bad..... all the responsibilities, yet none of the rights.
I would support measures to:
1. Take on the Parking Violations Bureau and analyze the fine structure for proportionality.
2. Impose greater accountability, block by block, house by house, for tax dollars, as concerns road maintenance, trash pickup, plowing, etc. though a system which forces property tax refunds for city agencies not following through on responsibilities.
3. Remove property owners and businesses from liability for sidewalks and gutters.
4. Permit opt out of portions of property tax for property owners wishing to dispose of trash, pave roads, or perform other services by private means.
5. Offer a price per weight or volume based trash service to encourage re-use and recycling.
6. Carefully evaluate waste in public agencies, such as unnecessary school renovations, or inappropriately purchased supplies, overindulgent bus shelters and decorated subway stations, lampposts and other wastes of tax dollars.
This is because there is no competition and no accountability. The lowly bottle deposit law comes with a bill of rights. However, there is no set of obligations which residents can expect the city to fulfill. We are paying for certain services. If we were paying a private company for garbage collection or road repair, they would have to hustle, because we could take our business elsewhere. No competition plus no accountability guidelines equals fiscal waste and abuse. Money is taken from one neighborhood and is used elsewhere. The public should have the power to force the city to live up to its own obligations. For example, when roads go unrepaired past a deadline, or if trash pickups are "missed," the customers should be refunded in the form of tax rebates. We should have a right to take our business elsewhere.
City services should be no frills and utilitarian. Like the post office. The US Postal Service is a model government agency because it finances its whole operation through postage and products it sells. People who don't use it are not paying for it. The city should do the same. Extravagances like decorative floor tiles in the subway are a slap in the face to taxpayers who need to stretch their money. Money could be saved by the city in the same way you do so in your own household. Use less. Hold off on unnecessary purchases or renovations. Comparison shop.
The green movement has been presented to us as an inconvenience with a high price tag. This makes no sense. Using less and recycling saves money. People should be encouraged to visit for-cash recycling centers rather than fined for mixing trash incorrectly. Inform people about value and trash would disappear. Create a rate plan for garbage pickup based on number of containers, with a financial incentive to throw away less stuff.
Property ownership ends at the property line. Try parking your car on the sidewalk if you don't believe me. The city taxes us for the upkeep of public areas yet forces adjacent owners to deal with cleaning and repair. At the same time, it authorizes sanitation agents to peer into your driveway or front walk and throw $100 fines at you because there is an empty cup or newpaper on the ground. For the residents, the deal is bad..... all the responsibilities, yet none of the rights.
I would support measures to:
1. Take on the Parking Violations Bureau and analyze the fine structure for proportionality.
2. Impose greater accountability, block by block, house by house, for tax dollars, as concerns road maintenance, trash pickup, plowing, etc. though a system which forces property tax refunds for city agencies not following through on responsibilities.
3. Remove property owners and businesses from liability for sidewalks and gutters.
4. Permit opt out of portions of property tax for property owners wishing to dispose of trash, pave roads, or perform other services by private means.
5. Offer a price per weight or volume based trash service to encourage re-use and recycling.
6. Carefully evaluate waste in public agencies, such as unnecessary school renovations, or inappropriately purchased supplies, overindulgent bus shelters and decorated subway stations, lampposts and other wastes of tax dollars.
Property Rights
It's difficult to buy a house. It takes years to pay for it. Many people spend years getting accustomed to the surroundings, becoming part of a community, and customizing their homes. It's beyond wrong that our government would take homes and land from people who have put their lives into them whenever someone with what is perceived as a "better use" comes along. Trespassers should not have legal avenues to take land or homes simply by occupying them. Property ownership should mean something.
It should mean that a homeowner has more right than neighbors to decide how his or her property is used. Individuals should not have to "sneak in" home renovations or extensions. Rental agreements should be free contracts whose terms should be negotiated by landlord and tenant only. The anonymous reporting system of the Department of Buildings should not become a tool for neighbor-on-neighbor disputes.
I would support measures to:
1. End eminent domain and adverse possession
2. Simplify building permit process
3. Streamline zoning regulations so that people can use their land to greatest personal or business potential
4. Reduce property taxes to the minimum needed to pay for services required by the property owner
5. Allow simpler conversion of status of property to rental
6. Detach property ownership from responsibility for adjacent city land
It should mean that a homeowner has more right than neighbors to decide how his or her property is used. Individuals should not have to "sneak in" home renovations or extensions. Rental agreements should be free contracts whose terms should be negotiated by landlord and tenant only. The anonymous reporting system of the Department of Buildings should not become a tool for neighbor-on-neighbor disputes.
I would support measures to:
1. End eminent domain and adverse possession
2. Simplify building permit process
3. Streamline zoning regulations so that people can use their land to greatest personal or business potential
4. Reduce property taxes to the minimum needed to pay for services required by the property owner
5. Allow simpler conversion of status of property to rental
6. Detach property ownership from responsibility for adjacent city land
Poverty
As I have said before, our schools fail to provide a sufficiently broad education, so many leave high school unprepared for college..... and not prepared for anything else. Poverty is often the result of a lack of skills, not only job skills, but financial and organizational skills as well. All of these things need to be learned. Unfortunately education does none of this. Students who are oppositional and don't want to finish high school should be permitted that option, certainly by age 15. They should be free to enter the job world, then always have the option to return, at any age, to obtain the remainder of the education they were entitled to..... that is, the number of years which remained between when they left and age 21. When returning, they would likely be more focused and directed. There would be fewer fights and less garbage. Forced education is just an anger factory.
People need skills. People want skills that will help them. Just watch the crowd attending the free seminars at home depot. The students are attentive because they want the skills the teacher is providing, and they will likely rush to put them to use. Private industry should be encouraged to take over here. Manufacturers of green technology such as solar panels and biodiesel generators should be given the opportunity to rent space in empty schools to teach and sell. These skills would empower people by giving them skills and enabling them to get control over their finances. And the taxpayer would not be sent a bill.
Public housing is a useful leg up for many people. However if people never leave public housing or reach the point where they can pay fair market value, there gets to be a long waiting list and people in housing emergencies have nowhere to go. Financial and job counseling should accompany leases in public housing, which will help residents prepare for either privatization or purchasing their own home.
I would support:
1. Adult education run by private for profit businesses looking for employees
2. Providing financial case workers for every household in public system to help them strategize for impending privatization
3. Ending the current policy of sweeping homelessness under the rug
4. Work fare to empower those on public assistance in such a way that employment doesn’t result in diminished income.
5. Decriminalization of all forms of honest work that could provide opportunity for those who are poor, or disadvantaged in some other way.
People need skills. People want skills that will help them. Just watch the crowd attending the free seminars at home depot. The students are attentive because they want the skills the teacher is providing, and they will likely rush to put them to use. Private industry should be encouraged to take over here. Manufacturers of green technology such as solar panels and biodiesel generators should be given the opportunity to rent space in empty schools to teach and sell. These skills would empower people by giving them skills and enabling them to get control over their finances. And the taxpayer would not be sent a bill.
Public housing is a useful leg up for many people. However if people never leave public housing or reach the point where they can pay fair market value, there gets to be a long waiting list and people in housing emergencies have nowhere to go. Financial and job counseling should accompany leases in public housing, which will help residents prepare for either privatization or purchasing their own home.
I would support:
1. Adult education run by private for profit businesses looking for employees
2. Providing financial case workers for every household in public system to help them strategize for impending privatization
3. Ending the current policy of sweeping homelessness under the rug
4. Work fare to empower those on public assistance in such a way that employment doesn’t result in diminished income.
5. Decriminalization of all forms of honest work that could provide opportunity for those who are poor, or disadvantaged in some other way.
General Overlegislation
We are legislated to death in this city. It seems you can't take two steps without breaking several nuisance laws. Nuisance laws are an inappropriate way to fill holes in a wasteful budget. Parking fines, for example, are collected by Department of Finance rather than the Department of Justice. The fines are predatory and are generally disproportionate to the "offenses." Plenty of other nuisance laws remain unused for years, then are randomly enforced in sudden ticket writing "blitzes" when the public least expects it. Obsolete laws should periodically come up for review and should have to be passed as new or be repealed.
The trend is leaning towards greater personal freedom in many parts of the world, and even in other parts of this country. On many of these issues, New York City should have been first. Same sex marriage is recognized in several foreign countries and in several U.S. states. Anything less is discriminatory. Much of the world is also gradually legalizing marijuana for both medical and recreational use. Once again, it is embarrassing that New York City has not led on these equality and freedom issues.
Finally, the right to control your government rests with the citizens in a democracy. If millions of people can efficiently vote for American Idol each week, there is no reason why we must give legislators free reign for 4 years at a time like we did in the 1800s. You should have the opportunity to vote in onlne referendums on a variety of issues on a weekly basis. The public is intelligent enough. All we need is for the process to be convenient, quick, and non-corrupt.
I would like to:
1. Provide a system of review for “dead letters” so that the city does not have the opportunity to “resurrect” them in times of fiscal crisis
2. Promote greater involvement of the general population through such measures as more frequent referendums and internet polling
3. Implement gradual experimental phase outs of unpopular restrictive laws regulating personal freedom, following models of similar programs tried by other cities, and accompany this with careful evaluation of associated costs.
The trend is leaning towards greater personal freedom in many parts of the world, and even in other parts of this country. On many of these issues, New York City should have been first. Same sex marriage is recognized in several foreign countries and in several U.S. states. Anything less is discriminatory. Much of the world is also gradually legalizing marijuana for both medical and recreational use. Once again, it is embarrassing that New York City has not led on these equality and freedom issues.
Finally, the right to control your government rests with the citizens in a democracy. If millions of people can efficiently vote for American Idol each week, there is no reason why we must give legislators free reign for 4 years at a time like we did in the 1800s. You should have the opportunity to vote in onlne referendums on a variety of issues on a weekly basis. The public is intelligent enough. All we need is for the process to be convenient, quick, and non-corrupt.
I would like to:
1. Provide a system of review for “dead letters” so that the city does not have the opportunity to “resurrect” them in times of fiscal crisis
2. Promote greater involvement of the general population through such measures as more frequent referendums and internet polling
3. Implement gradual experimental phase outs of unpopular restrictive laws regulating personal freedom, following models of similar programs tried by other cities, and accompany this with careful evaluation of associated costs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
