The Observer got an alarmed email from a reader, whose thoughtful daughter sent her our article on the proposed bike helmet legislation, which the reader does not like one bit. Her email, cleverly titled “Will mom opt for civil disobedience?,” expresses some serious concerns about the possibilities of being forced to wear a helmet, and the reason such legislation does not make sense. Read More
In leu of the fact that all bicyclists, regardless of age, might have to start strapping on helmets, the Observer thought we’d get a head start (pun intended) on searching for the most stylish helmets available. As for what to do about the “helmet hair” that we’re sure to get after wearing one, we’re still working on that. Read More
City Councilman David Greenfield is introducing a bill today to require every New York City cyclist to wear a bike helmet.
It is an intriguing proposal on a number of levels.
Currently, only children 13 and younger are required to wear a bike helmet. Think of the last time you saw a cyclist cruising by—were they wearing a helmet? Through highly unscientific personal observation, this reporter would say odds are evenly split for and against helmets. Maybe it’s a little higher, hopefully, so this is simply a safety measure, and a warranted one, like seat belt laws.
This is to be the attitude of the councilman, who told The Observer, “This is the simplest thing a cyclist can do to protect themselves. To do anything else is frankly irresponsible.” He pointed to federal statistics showing that 96 percent of bicycle fatalities involve people not wearing helmets (which may have as much to do with the cyclists attitude and actions as the presence of a helmet, but the numbers still speak volumes.)
Still, the best way not to get killed on your bike in the city is to keep from getting hit by a car. Which begs the question if this is not simply more anti-bike legislation masquerading as pro-bike legislation. Going back to the back-of-the-envelope assumption that half of city cyclists don’t wear helmets, dumb if legal as that may be, how many of them might stop riding if it meant the choice between mussed hair and a $25 fine? With thousands of bike share bikes on the way, could this kill the program before it even gets off the ground? Read More
Is the city’s Landmarks Law broken?
To the uninitiated, that would have been the likely conclusion from a hearing held at the City Council today. Eleven different pieces of legislation addressing myriad issues at the commission were debated. Nearly half of the council’s 59 member made an appearance, grilling officials from the Landmarks Preservation Commission and the Department of Buildings over problems perceived, parochial and patrician at the city agencies.
The city is under assault from a nanny state stuck in the past seemed to be the clear message.
For the large crowd assembled in protest for what turned out to be a four hour meeting, the case was quite the opposite: It was the city’s daring Landmarks Preservation Commission, keeper of the soul of the city, that was under assault. Of the 54 people who signed up to give testimony before a joint session of two council committees all but one spoke out against the vast majority of the bills. Read More
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.” Read More
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!” Read More
The City Council’s approval of the so-called “prevailing wage” bill was not a surprise. The Council remains a bastion of the old politics of government grandstanding and job-killing mandates, and the “prevailing wage” bill gave members the opportunity to pander to unions and other special interests.
So it wasn’t the vote itself that was interesting. But a maneuver that took place before the vote spoke volumes about the bill’s recklessness. Read More
It is unrealistic to expect that the march of reform will proceed without incident. Yes, both the state and the city have come a long way in recent years on a host of issues, ranging from tax policy to education reform. Mayors and governors understand that it is no longer acceptable to rely on tax hikes to pay for wasteful spending practices. That’s all good.
Every now and again, though, we’re reminded of the kinds of policies that earned the city and state a deserved reputation as a difficult place to do business.
The City Council this week is expected to pass a bill that will require developers to pay higher labor costs on projects that receive more than $1 million in subsidies. Read More
City Hall introduced a new grading system for restaurants less than two years ago. It was touted as a way of ensuring the safety and cleanliness of the city’s 24,000 restaurants—eateries with an “A” were the cleanest, those with a “C” were branded as failures.
While Mayor Bloomberg thinks the system is terrific, the city’s restaurant industry begs to differ. And the industry is right. The prominent letter grades have a chilling effect on businesses that already operate on the margins, and the fines for less-than-stellar compliance are too stiff.
The mayor believes that the system’s critics are, in the main, restaurant owners who “don’t want to keep their restaurants clean.” But that’s simply not true. Read More
Michael Bloomberg has never been shy about telling us how he wants to be remembered. His fondest wish, he has said, is that historians will credit him with turning around the city’s public school system.
Perhaps they will. At the moment, however, it seems more likely that Mr. Bloomberg will be remembered for keeping the city’s treasury on an even keel during two tumultuous economic downturns. It has been a masterful, even historic, performance. Read More
