The building's famous exterior (melfoody, flickr)

Sunday morning in front of the Chelsea Hotel, a crowd of eccentrically-attired, artistic types milled about the sidewalk while a scrum of reporters and local politicians scrutinized a collection of photographs propped on easels.

A passerby stopped to gawk. "What is this, an art show?" she asked.

And the now infamous interior

It was, in fact, a press conference, at which tenants and politicians announced their shared dissatisfaction with the ongoing disrepair of the building, and their intention to engage in a bruising legal battle if no agreement is reached Monday in housing court.

For an update on today's housing court decision>>

"We are here, unfortunately, to address how far the Chelsea Hotel has fallen. The Chelsea Hotel, once symbolic of all that Chelsea and the West Side had to offer, has fallen into disarray," said City Council speaker Christine Quinn. "Mold covers its walls and  asbestos literally lurks in the airshafts, rust is deteriorating cabinets and sinks and appliances. The landlord has done nothing, less than nothing, to improve these conditions."

The residents of the Chelsea have spent the last six months focusing their energies on the decay and demolition that have taken hold  since Joseph Chetrit purchased the historic edifice for $80 million last August.

The housing court date is the latest stage in a battle that had been raging since last summer, when Mr. Chetrit's gung-ho renovation set loose hazardous debris that had been hidden behind the walls for decades. Asbestos and silica dust particles filled the air. Pipes burst and mold spores colonized the walls and ceilings. Rust dripped from the faucets of the landmarked building, and life suddenly became very unpleasant for the remaining 100 (many of them rent-stabilized) tenants.

Politicians expressed their outrage, vows were made, agreements were hammered out, Patti Smith planned a free concert in the hotel, but was asked not to perform by residents who were worried she was performing at the behest of the new owner. (Ms. Smith, her efforts unofficial and uncompensated, who insisted that her only allegiance was to the Chelsea Hotel and agreed not to perform).

Months passed, the mold and decay continued to spread, eviction actions moved forward against a number of residents, negotiations failed and the tenants had finally decided that either the Chetrit Group would sign the agreement that they had reached earlier or they would demand a trial.

Built in 1896, the red brick building, the former haunt and home of many an artist including Bob Dylan and Dylan Thomas and Patti Smith and Sid Vicious and Leonard Cohen and Charles Bukowski, has often been a little down at the heels (as you might expect of a place known for its lenient, rent-bartering policy. In Just Kids, Ms. Smith wrote about having to let the water run for awhile so that it didn't come out brown). However, according to Ms. Quinn and others, the current state of decay is advanced and not due to benign neglect, but work done quickly, carelessly—and with little consideration for the people living in the building. (Chetrit is said to have classified the building as "unoccupied" when it applied for the building permits).

"This is what happens why an owner puts the rights to make a lot of money over the right of tenants to live peacefully," said assemblyman Dick Gottfried (the roster at the press conference was an impressive one, especially for a Sunday morning, but then, mold is seldom so glamorous).

The Tenants Association filed a lawsuit in December demanding Mr. Chetrit fix unsafe conditions and comply with safety and environmental regulations by removing hazardous materials.  Since then, the tenants have agreed to extension after extension, concession after concession, but the Chetrit Group kept moving the goal posts, said the tenant's attorney Janet Ray Kalson.

The lawyer representing the Chetrit Group did return requests for comment.

Coming on the heels of Landmarks Preservation Committee late-April approval for the construction of a massive rooftop bar/nightclub atop their historic hotel (a move that shocked many, especially since Landmarks had ordered architect Gene Kaufman to resubmit a more realistic proposal earlier that month), the last failed agreement proved to too much for residents.

"The landlords have delayed, obfuscated and stonewalled by refusing to enter into an agreement that would protect tenants' rights at the Chelsea," said Zoe Pappas, president of the tenants association, who took The Observer on a tour of some of the building's more unsavory spaces.

"The personnel has been very forthright in seeming to promise to do things. It's just the fact that they don't," said painter Mary Anne Rose-Gentry, speaking from the window of her 8th-floor apartment crowded with paintings done by her and her late husband Herbert Gentry, old copies of Art in America, a flaking ceiling and crumbling tile and plaster knocked loose by the damp beneath the walls and the force of nearby demolition work.

The apartment looked defeated, the 8th-floor hallway looked defeated, and Ms. Rose-Gentry looked especially defeated. "I can't be a hardy camper anymore," she said. "Can you imagine collectors coming here? People used to love to come to the Chelsea Hotel and get a peek."

On the way out, Ms. Pappas pointed out that the hallway, and the plastic sheeting over the doorways of rooms where work was being done, was actually an improvement, her high-heels clicking past a (thankfully) empty mousetrap.

In the 1st-floor single-room apartment of John Knoernschild, a dapper retired composer and pianist, conditions were even worse. Upon opening the door, a cloud of swampy odor hit The Observer, with mold wafting from the cracked walls and tile. A huge hole  gaped in the ceiling. The bathroom's electricity had cut out, so Mr. Knoernschild had rigged up an extension cord light-bulb of the sort construction workers use.

"You'll see that some of my solutions are pretty primitive," said Mr. Knoernschild with an impish grin.

He seemed happy to play host in his tiny apartment. (As two other tenants talked about the similarly-tiny apartment they shared, he edged gracefully into the conversation. "Excuse me, he said, leaning forward eagerly on his cane, but I must interrupt for a joke. The apartment was so small that they had to get married.") He clearly loves the kitchen-less 250-square feet of space where he's lived for the past 30-years.

"Every time I want to get to something I have to move something else," said Mr. Knoernschild with obvious delight. "They were trying to get me to move for $10,000! You can't find another place for that."

As miserable as it was to live with a huge moldy hole in one's apartment and a bathroom without electricity, Mr. Knoernschild said that he'd certainly enjoyed some aspects of the fight.

"I've been living here for 30 years and I'm suddenly meeting residents I've never met before!," he marveled. "I think it's really brought us together."

And even with a housing court battle looming and the Chelsea rendered nearly unlivable with noxious debris, the residents seemed to take some comfort in the fact that the building was, at least for the time being, still theirs. A bland luxury hotel might be taking shape behind the plastic sheeting, but at the moment, the Chelsea is about as far from luxury as you can get.

"The building has a life of its own. It's been a magnet for artistic and creative people even before it was built. You can't just rip the guts out of this building and turn it into a nightclub for Bridge and Tunnel people," said Brian Bothwell, a filmmaker photographer who lives in an apartment once occupied by both Leonard Cohen and Grace Jones. "You can buy the Chelsea Hotel, but you don't own the Chelsea Hotel, the Chelsea Hotel owns you."

kvelsey@observer.com

Elisha Otis demonstrating his first elevator. How much has changed?

The hearing room was full and the overflow room was overflowing at the New York City Council’s offices at 250 Broadway this afternoon. Maybe it was the fact that this was the first elevator safety hearing since two New Yorkers lost their lives in elevators in the past year. Maybe it was the fact that this was the first oversight hearing on elevator safety since 2003.

This in a city where most people live and work in high-rise, all serviced by some 60,000 elevators.

The main issue of the afternoon was two new elevator safety bills proposed by the council: one that would require existing elevators to be furnished with more safety devices and another that would require elevator workers to be licensed.

“We require licensing of our plumbers. We require licensing of our electricians. And the lack of elevator licensing is a major loophole,” said councilmember James Vacca, a sponsor of the licensing bill. “It is also a threat to the safety of millions of New Yorkers.”

The council was largely motivated to hold the hearing because of the elevator-related deaths of Suzanne Hart, 41, an advertising executive who was fatally injured on Dec. 14, 2011 when she walked into an elevator that shot upward unexpectedly; and Ed Bradley, 45, who was electrocuted on March 28 while working on an elevator. Council Speaker and expected 2013 mayoral candidate Christine Quinn briefly stopped by to comment on these deaths and voice her support for the bills.

“The Department of Buildings, the elevator industry, and the union have all worked to make elevators safer,“ she said. “But when New Yorkers continue to lose their lives, it’s clear that more needs to be done.”

The tone of the hearing occasionally turned heated between members of the council and representatives from the Departments of Buildings, responsible for the inspection and oversight of the city’s elevators. Although Buildings Commissioner Robert LiMandri said in his testimony that he felt the city was “moving in the right direction” with the two bills and later agreed that elevator mechanics should receive more training and undergo a more stringent certification process, his department still came under sharp criticism from councilmember Peter Vallone, Jr., a cosponsor of the licensing bill, and councilmember Robert Jackson.

Councilman Vallone, when he was questioning Buildings Department officials, mockingly commented on its current standards of qualification for elevator mechanics. “The mechanics have to be periodically trained as well as be able to provide the health and fitness to carry out their duties,” he said. “That may be the most minimum requirement I’ve ever heard of for any position, let alone a mechanic. I think anyone in this room has the health and fitness to carry out their duties.”

The questioning got more intense under Councilman Jackson, who became angry with the department over what he viewed as its vague responses to questions about whether or not elevator agency directors were allowed to contract out work to other companies.

“Are we running a safe business if in fact you can’t answer my simple question?” he asked. “I want an answer. Are you contracting out work?”

Commissioner LiMandri eventually said that, yes, the department was contracting out work, prompting Mr. Jackson to respond, “Well then how come you didn’t say that, then? That was a very simple question that demanded a simple answer.”

Mr. LiMandri apologized for the confusion, and subsequent councilmembers’ questions were much calmer.

Public opinion on the bills was mixed as that of a crowded elevator.

Steven Rakowski, speaking on behalf of Teamsters Local 237, said that the union supported the council’s desire to ensure that elevator workers were properly skilled and qualified. However, he expressed concern over whether or not the bill would result in job losses for current city employees.

Mary Ann Rothman, executive director of the council of New York Cooperatives & Condominiums, said that, while the apartment owners she was speaking for wanted their buildings to be safe, they were concerned about the costs that would be imposed by new standards for elevators and by how quickly the council planned to implement these new standards.

One thing’s for sure: Law and Order: Elevator Inspectors Unit may have just been a Simpsons gag back in 2002, but in 2012, it’s an issue New Yorkers aren’t laughing about.

editorial@observer.com

A sea of angry renters.

Every year, for the past 41 years, the nine members of the Rent Guidelines Board have gathered to reach a secretive consensus that sets the annual rent increases on rent-regulated apartments at somewhere around 3 percent, a move that without fail earns the ire of tenants and property owners alike.

It is unlikely that the Rent Guidelines Board harbors any illusions about its popularity at this point, but this year looks to bring unprecedented animosity. It's only April and insults are flying,  months before the board inevitably makes its rage-inducing decision.

"We need to move away from the days of a kangaroo court," shouted City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, who took to the steps of City Hall Monday morning to call for reforms to the hated board. "Regardless of the data... the rents go up!"

Speaker Quinn was joined by several other councilmembers, Assembleymen Brian Kavanagh and Richard Gottfried, State Sen. Daniel Squadron and a vocal, sign-waving crowd of tenants and tenant-rights advocates.

Although proposed state legislation won't necessarily stop the rent from going up, it would change the selection and composition of the Rent Guidelines Board, requiring City Council approval of mayoral appointees and opening up membership to include a broader range of professional backgrounds—urban planning, social services and public policy to name a few (the current requirement is at least five years experience in either finance, economics or housing).

This is not the bill's maiden voyage, but proponents see an opening, especially with the debate over rent control re-energized by the possible Supreme Court battle over rent regulation (the court may decide whether or not to hear James D. Harmon Jr.'s challenge to rent control in the coming weeks). The case has the possibility to "end rent control as we know it," City Councilmember Jessica Lappin warned the crowd, especially "given the Roberts court."

Although the bill would have no effect on this year's RGB, the season of rent rage is here—the board's annual vote is looming and with it the prospect of yet another inevitable rent increase, riling the residents' who are fortunate enough to live in rent-regulated apartments. While no one mentioned it, it seems evident the situation was especially heated given the fact rents are at an all-time high, according to first quarter reports from CitiHabitats—never mind the fact the city is still weathering economic doldrums.

"It's an extraordinarily important body, not only to tenants who live in those buildings, but to the basic economic future of our city," said Assemblyman Kavanagh. "As always, the increases of the Rent Guidelines Board should reflect the economic realities of both tenants and landlords... this is a bill we think is ripe to get done now."

State Sen. Squadron called City Council confirmation of appointees to the "opaque" board "an absolute no-brainer."

"Let's empower our local legislative body to have a say in the lives of millions of New Yorkers," he urged the crowd.

In fact, it turns out that the RGB doesn't even like itself. Adriene Holder, a tenant member of the RGB for the past 10 years (and the head of the Legal Aid Society's Civil Practice) also stepped up to the podium to vent her dissatisfaction with the board.

"I've seen nothing but increases!" cried Ms. Holder. "Why is it that the last three years, during the worst recession in recent history... we've seen unprecedented increases in rent?" (To be fair, this has something to do with the fact that so few people are buying because of the recession, and instead renting in the interim, though no doubt other economic pressures are to blame for rising rents.)

Ms. Holder's criticism was slight compared to that of Councilman Jumaane Williams, the former executive director of Tenants and Neighbors, who took to the microphone to declare that "The Rent Guidelines Board is a sham. That's basically what it is."

Ouch!

Perhaps the Rent Stabilization Association, an association to represents 25,000 property owners and agents responsible for some one million units of housing, would have a kind word for the RGB.

"We would say that the RGB has been overzealous in protecting tenants to the detriment of the housing stock," said executive vice president Jack Freund when the Observer reached him on the phone. Mr. Freund said that the association would like to see rent increases that reflected the annual price increases.

Well, my enemy's enemy is my friend and all that. Was Mr. Freund in favor of the proposed reform?

"City Council approval is the kiss of death because you’re not going to have rational, objective people on the board," Mr. Freund said. "I’m sure they’d be very happy if it was filled with five homeless housing advocates, and that might be more representative, but it wouldn’t fulfill the function of the RGB, which to preserve existing housing stocks by providing the rent increases that are necessary each year to cover the rising costs of taxes."

Of course! Blame it on the tax man. 'Tis the season.

kvelsey@observer.com

"If you had said twenty years ago, 'you know the meatpacking district is going to be a cultural hub,'" Council Speaker Christine Quinn said in a short documentary on the neighborhood, "People would have looked at you like you were in some sort of beef-induced overdose haze and you had lost your mind."

Teaming up with the Meatpacking Improvement Association (MIPA), Andre Balasz of the Standard captures the transformation of the neighborhood from being a gritty hub of meatpacking factories to the hub of high-end hotels, retail stores, and night clubs that it is today, Curbed noticed.

The seven-minute video features several neighborhood residents that were quintessential in shaping the history, including Florent owner, Florent Morrelet, the Meilman family, and David Rabin of Double Seven.

Hogs and Heifers' owner, Michelle Dell, also contributed, noting that she'll "never forget when the neighborhood started to transition. When the women started rolling around in their Jimmy Choo and their Guccis in this kind of slipping and sliding in the streets that were covered in this sort of thin film of meat sludge."

mewing@observer.com

Section 8 it ain't. (FXFowle)

Bill Rudin must be wondering if it was worth it in the end.

Given the price of prime Manhattan real estate, the answer is almost definitely yes, but that does not change the fact that the redevelopment of the St. Vincent's hospital into condos in the heart of Greenwich Village has been a long and expensive enterprise. Lawsuits, landmarks reviews, a recession, demands for a new school: the Rudins have overcome them all. Now, it appears, the city wants more.

According to Crain's, Council Speaker Christine Quinn, the local representative for the Village, is poised to extract yet more concessions from Rudin Management to redevelop the hospital. The developer will give more money for local schools, and a compromise appears to be in the works over what to do with a triangle of land currently planned as a community park. A counter-proposal for an AIDS Memorial has been made, though Mr. Rudin did not appear eager to embrace it, as it could require new approvals.

One thing not on the table is affordable housing, perhaps the greatest concern in the ever-more-expensive Village. That would be a truly costly concession, and after all this time and money, one he would probably not like to make.

mchaban [at] observer.com | @MC_NYC

Given the budget deficits that New York is facing, both at the city and state level, one of the questions I always ask politicians looking for donations is what three specific line items in the city budget do they believe could withstand cutbacks.  I have never received a straightforward answer to this question and most of the time the default position from the politician is, “We must work hard to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse.”

This is simply the nature of politics because candidates cringe at the thought of alienating any voter group, notwithstanding how they may actually feel about a particular issue.

I find it interesting that the “waste, fraud and abuse” cop-out is relied on so heavily (after all, who wouldn’t agree to eliminating these things?) but when politicians finally get the chance to address waste, fraud and abuse, they rarely take advantage of the opportunity.

A case in point is the recent turmoil over the fingerprinting of food stamp recipients. Many elected officials have demonized this practice as being a stigmatism on recipients. Recently, City Council Speaker Christine Quinn said, “Fingerprinting food-stamp applications is an unnecessary, time-consuming, stigmatizing process that I believe criminalizes poverty.” So, should we surmise from this that the only people getting fingerprinted are criminals?

This is far from the fact. Nearly every city government employee is fingerprinted. If you want a job in the school system, you need to be fingerprinted. This includes teachers, clerical staff, janitorial staff, hall monitors, cafeteria employees, sports officials, bus aides, bus drivers and employees of contract service providers who are placed within a school.

Additionally, holders of taxi medallions must go through this process. Many who work on Wall Street are fingerprinted, as are employees of the FBI, the CIA and the military. I assume this elected official believes that all of these people are stigmatized.

Clearly, this process has not stigmatized those folks, and it’s not as if the food stamp recipient, who is fingerprinted, will walk around with an ink-stained thumb for the rest of their life. If elected officials are serious about eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse, the time tested method of fingerprinting recipients of public assistance should be continued.

The mayor and the governor disagree on this issue. Recently, Mayor Bloomberg defended the policy saying, “There’s just no reason I know of why you shouldn’t do fingerprinting on food stamps as a prophylactic measure to ensure the public that the only people who are getting benefits that the public are paying for are those that deserve it.”

It is apparent that this issue is more about getting votes than being fiscally responsible. 1.8 million New York City residents receive the benefit. That’s a lot of votes, and a lot of room for waste, fraud and abuse if not administered properly.

You may be asking why I am concerned about the elimination of waste, fraud and abuse from the city and state budgets. From a state perspective, I am concerned because the less money the state has to give to the city, the less money the city gets from the state.

And from the city’s perspective, the more money that is squandered will lead to ever increasing budget deficits, which will lead to inevitably ever-increasing real estate taxes which have reached all-time highs as the percentage of gross revenue. This is notwithstanding the supposed correlation between real estate tax assessments and market value. We have seen this relationship abandoned when the city needs money. The city needs money, so real estate taxes go up.

We must implore all elected officials to be fiscally responsible. True line item budget cuts are unlikely so we must attempt to implement strategies to truly eliminate waste, fraud and abuse. Pension reform is another huge area impacting our finances, but this is another topic for another day. Presently, we must try to keep the deficits to a minimum, which will reduce the upward pressure that is continually placed on our real estate tax obligations.

Rknakal@masseyknakal.com

Robert Knakal is the chairman and founding partner of Massey Knakal Realty Services and in his career has brokered the sale of more than 1,175 properties, having a market value in excess of $7.8 billion.

Fixing homes from the bully pulpit. (William Alatriste/City Council)

In between heavy dollops of sentiment, Christine Quinn cemented some specific plans to combat the affordable housing problem and the facilitation of upgrading the City’s landlord maintenance code in her State of the City address last week.

Ms. Quinn outlined how the Housing Preservation and Development Department is extending affordability to 60 years for some of the biggest developments. Affordability agreements currently stand at just the 30-year mark.

How affordability agreements work is, the City provides incentives to developers and in exchange they make units affordable, but the current 30-year watermark is seen as too short in the face of the steady march to urban gentrification and the unceremonious shoving out of decade-long residents. The issue of affordable housing has turned into a weighty one recently, becoming a go-to subject for many would-be Mayoral candidates.

“Sixty years isn’t permanent,” said Ms. Quinn, “but it’s a critical first step”. She is championing a move toward what she called "permanent affordability." She is going to work on correcting what she finds as archaic legislation, which sees veterans' tax exemptions inexplicably linked to how much the City spends on schools. “Is that a classic government kick in the pants, or what?” Ms. Quinn said.

In a speech that was laden with wistful recollections of a New York of days of yore, full of kinship and camaraderie, Ms. Quinn also urged the City to create a new program to help get the some 10,000 homeless families into long-term housing. She wants to prioritize homeless families for NYCHA apartments. “This isn’t just the right thing to do,” said Ms. Quinn, “it’s the fiscally responsible thing to do. The average cost of a rental subsidy for a family of four is $800 a month. To house that same family in a shelter? $3,000.”

The theme of rehousing the homeless offered a nice segue into her next topic: the state of housing maintenance. She criticized landlords at large, and the City’s own NYCHA, for taking “years for repairs that take less than an hour to make.” Ms. Quinn called for modifications to be made to the City’s housing maintenance code that would compel landlords to fix the root cause of building problems, and not just the short-term issue.

“Instead of just fixing water damage, landlords will have to repair the hole in the roof that's causing it,” Ms. Quinn said. “Slumlords will have to spend real money and fix the real problem or we’ll haul them into housing court.” She reiterated her urgency on the timeliness of repairs: “Not in a year. Not in a month. Today”.

"'How will the NYCHA be able to scale to this level of productivity,' you say? Well funnily enough the Council are upping the funding for NYCHA for this year and in doing so creating 175 new jobs."

Yes, before you know Ms. Quinn will have us back to those glory years she speaks of: Kick the can games on every street, suffocating smell of cabbage from every kitchen and the hanging of laundry out every window.

sduffy@observer.com

Green giant. (AP/NYM)

The current mild winter, without the habitual annoyance of your feet tracking  snow all over the apartment, could excuse some hard-nosed New Yorkers for not giving two hoots about global warming.

However today, Mayor Michael Bloomberg and City Council Speaker Christine Quinn announced that 29 recommendations aimed at making the city's buildings more sustainable have been drafted into law. Eight more recommendations are currently being codified.

The initial green building report–commissioned by the Mayor’s office–was published all of two years ago by the Urban Green Council, a nonprofit whose goal is to lead sustainable urban design. The report contained 111 recommendations. The city claims that the implementation of the new laws will reduce those pesky greenhouse emissions by 5 percent citywide, making for a $400 million saving by the year 2030.

It is all part of the Mayor’s PlaNYC sustainability initiative. “When we launched PlaNYC five years ago, we put forward a bold vision to make our City more sustainable, and meeting those goals is now a part of how our city develops,” the mayor said in a statement.

Some of the laws include no use of artificial lighting where natural lighting is efficient, water fountains instead of vending machines and white roofs that reflect the suns heat, instead of those nasty heat gathering black ones. The city is also working on removing old red tape that used to impede green design.

“These simple changes are just the beginning of making our buildings more environmentally friendly and making New York one of the world’s greenest cities,” Buildings Commissioner Robert LiMandri said.

Challenges remain. With only two years left for the administration and the current council class, how many more of these initiatives will be passed? After all, much of what has been tackled so far is the low-hanging fruit—CFLs, anyone?—meaning that the road ahead will be a little rougher.

realestate@observer.com

Welcome ashore! (William Alatriste/City Council)

All the haters can walk the plank.

East River ferry service has struggled for years, arguably because it lacked the critical mass, but that is clearly no longer a problem. The service has its six-month anniversary today, and in celebration, all rides today are free.

It is a savvy marketing ploy—the  first week of rides this summer were free, too—but the ferry does not really need it, either. The city's Economic Development Corporation announced that the ferry had already exceeded annual ridership projections, shuttling almost half-a-million riders in the first six months, well above the 409,000 riders expected in that period.

"The fact that East River Ferry ridership is shattering projections in only six months is proof that commuters and tourists alike are discovering both the beauty and convenience of traveling borough to borough on the East River by ferry," Council Speaker Christine Quinn said in a statment. "The East River Ferry has proven to not only provide a more scenic means of transportation, but also a more environmentally friendly, and in some cases, less time consuming commute for riders."

Speaker Quinn and other city officials spent the morning greeting ferry riders at the Wall Street pier.

mchaban [at] observer.com | @MC_NYC

The “living wage” bill would be, in fact, a job-destruction bill. Contractors will take their business elsewhere—that’s not simply a theory. A $300 million project in the Bronx stalled when Related Companies backed out of a development deal rather than submit to pressure to pay “living” wages.

All eyes are on Council Speaker Christine Quinn, who has the power to kill the bill or to put it to a vote. Whether one legislative leader should have that kind of power—they all do—certainly is open to question. But for better or worse, the speaker does, in fact, have that kind of influence. The fate of this job-killer is in her hands.

Ms. Quinn is going to run for mayor in 2013. She has been campaigning for the position for years. Her fellow Democrats and their allies in the union movement expect her to support the bill or at least to bring it to a vote. If she does, she no doubt will please an important constituency.

But leadership—citywide leadership—is not about pleasing a single constituency. It is about doing right for the city as a whole. If Ms. Quinn cannot see her way to killing this awful bill, this page would have a hard time taking her mayoral ambitions seriously.

How could we? The evidence is clear: government-mandated “living wage” provisions lead to unfinished and unrealized projects, which means that they destroy jobs. It is truly a lose-lose proposition for New York.

Ms. Quinn is on the fence. She cannot stay there for long. Serious people are watching, and they will make judgments about her decision. The right one may make her mayor. The wrong one would finish her, and rightly so.