Freedom from the tyranny of helmets! (Gucci Little Piggy)

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.

I am a life long liberal who has been riding bikes, without a helmet, since before you were born. I have been riding my bike in NYC for years and now ride more than ever, thanks to the wonderful new bike lanes.

A helmet law would interfere with my riding and is just one more intrusion of unnecessary government regulation into personal life. Don't give me free emergency room care if I have an accident but don't make me wear a helmet. 99% of bike accidents do not involve head injuries and most bike helmets fit so badly they would not help anyway. Wearing a bike helmet is uncomfortable, hot, irksome, cuts off hearing, and discourages biking, which is what should be encouraged.

You young fogies are such wimps, and it is this type of unnecessary regulation that drives people to Ron Paul, god forbid.

It is true that all on-the-record bike riders at The Observer wear bike helmets 99 percent of the time, namby pambies that we are, but we also respect the freedom of others to do as they choose with their safety and well being.

Meanwhile, the folks at Streetsblog dug up an interesting study showing that cities that require bike helmets also tend to be less safe for bikers. That does not mean that bike laws make things less safe, though. It could be the counter, in fact, where these laws are implemented to try and make already more dangerous streets safer.

Still, the fact remains, bike helmets may save lives, but they do not prevent accidents, which are the real problem, and which have been in decline, even as bike ridership has quintupled.

As for Ron Paul, we doubt cyclists would run into his arms considering the city's growing bike network was overwhelmingly financed (roughly 80 percent) through federal funds. Try and find a private contractor who would pony up for that.

For the WWI history buff: Limar's X-Urban Matt Green helmet

For the Englophile: Art's Cyclery's Union Jack Nutcase Helmet

For the patriot: Art Cyclery's Stars and Stripes Nutcase Helmet

For the hipster: Lazer Cityzen's Red Checker Helmet

For those channeling Weekend at Bernie's: Yakkay's Tokyo Blue Technic Helmet

For the fashionista: Sawako Furuno's Limited Edition Leopard Helmet

For the athlete: Bern's Carbon Helmet

Already have a helmet? The blog, CRAFT, has some quirky, DIY tips (think plastic flowers and creepy doll parts) for sprucing up your dome, or why not buy one of Wiggstyle’s colored Mohawks or spikey wigs to, as the website says, “Pimp your helmet?”

realestate@observer.com

Scofflaw? (Bridget Flemming/Downtown from Behind)

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?

There has been a rising current of such legislation amidst the bike backlash, some good, some bad. The call for bicycle registration has been widely viewed as a way to cut down ridership, while everyone can agree cracking down on bad delivery bikers is good for all New Yorkers—they can make life miserable for walkers, riders and drivers. Even the supposed NYPD crackdown on bikes is good if done right. Harassing riders safely traversing Central Park is one thing, but people going the wrong way down streets or blowing through stoplights not only present a safety risk but also create animosity among the ranks by giving the good cyclists a bad name. (Ditto angry drivers and jaywalkers, of course.)

With the exception of his complaints about the Ocean Parkway bike lane being shoveled while surrounding streets were not—a reasonable complaint, but one that also ignores that different machines for different jobs were used on the job—Councilman Greenfield is generally progressive when it comes to transportation issues, with the possible exception of leading the charge against those Department of Sanitation shame stickers, which proponents argue help enforce parking rules.

"It's basically common sense," the councilman said of his bill.

Perhaps bikers really should start wearing their helmets voluntarily. Maybe they should even be more diligent about following the laws, even when it's not convenient or entirely necessary. Sure, putting a foot down at an empty intersection where the light is nonetheless red might slow you down but it will also win you some respect. Even as a jaywalker next to you decides to cross since things are all clear.

This is what we were thinking when reading Justin Davidson's bracing defense of driving in the latest issue ofNew York magazine. Amazingly, he makes the practice sound appealing, rather than appalling.

Driving in the city is an extreme sport. Arriving from more placid places, you can feel the intensity spike as you home in on it. Lanes become notional, tailgating distances narrow, and you become more attuned to the body language of other cars. If you’re vigilant and blessed with good peripheral vision, you can often predict when another car will swing from the left to dart into a right turn.

Once you get into the lurching, irregular groove of city driving, it has a perverse adrenaline kick. Sharp as a forest beast, you process the crackle of random stimuli at a rate that would make a processor blanch. The other day, in the 30 seconds it took to drive one Manhattan block, I registered a double-parked SUV, a weaving bike messenger, a bus muscling abruptly into my lane, a jogger sprinting across the street as the light changed, an eighteen-wheeler filling the center lane, a massive pothole at my right wheel, and, at the corner, a walker gripping half a dozen dogs eager to bound into oncoming traffic. Somehow, my brain filtered those relevant observations from the streaming data of awnings and mailboxes and jackhammer noises and passersby. If mental exercise can slow the aging process, then driving in New York just might be the fountain of youth.

But for driving to work, so must every other mode of transportation—the more the merrier, and the merrier everyone will be:

Fulminating against drivers makes them feel beleaguered and resentful of changes that improve their lives. From behind the wheel, each new bike lane can look like an incursion into automotive territory, but it’s actually an amenity that gives us all more ways to travel and eases pressure on the roads. Streets designed solely as traffic conduits attract unsustainable amounts of traffic. For those who must—or choose to—drive, the best way to make the route more fluid is to help others ditch their cars.

[...]

If New York is to become a better habitat for automobiles, it should never be cheaper to drive than to take a less convenient form of transportation. To put it another way: Saving time should cost money, and vice versa. That way, car-­haters can stop spluttering about the ills of driving and let the rest of us whip around the city in ­motorized tranquility.

So long as a bike helmet law is done for the right reasons, to make the entire transportation system safer and smarter, it will be hard to argue with. But if it undermines these goals, then the whole debate is headed downhill faster than an out of control delivery bike.

mchaban [at] observer.com | @MC_NYC

Stamp of approval, or trouble? Leo Reynolds/Flickr

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.

The panic started on Friday, when a few of the preservationist groups were notified of the hearing. They were alarmed to learn that such a large number of bills, many of which they had never seen, were suddenly being taken up all at once by the council. "This is an unprecedented assault on the Landmarks Preservation Commission," Simeon Bankoff, executive director of the Historic Districts Council, said. A call to action went out—at least a half-dozen, in fact, over various email lists and blogs.

But was this really a shadow campaign against the Landmarks Preservation Commission, one orchestrated by Big Real Estate, to hit back at preservationists following the creation of the controversial Downtown Brooklyn Skyscraper district? In that effort, groups like the Real Estate Board of New York saw a commission overreaching, “saving” buildings they viewed as unfit for the recognition. And many of the bills presented yesterday seemed to address some of those concerns. On their face they made sense, in a perfect world, but in the eyes of the commission they amounted to unfunded mandates.

"All of these processes—surveys, reviews, research, report writing and designation—require judgment, time and expertise," Jenny Fernandez, director of intergovernmental and community relations at the commission, said. "The chair and executive staff must set priorities based on a number of factors, and the fact is that our resources are limited and setting these priorities is crucial."

The big issue for council members was a bill that would establish a timeline of roughly 33 months for proposed landmarks to be considered. "Everyone had deadlines, there is no reason you should be exempt," zoning committee chair Leroy Comrie scolded. Landmarks subcommittee chair Brad Lander invoked his preteen son, who has a willful disregard for timeliness. Councilman Robert Jackson of Harlem raved about a building it Harlem that had languished for 25 years on the commission's calendar. "That is a lifetime," he said. "You are stifling development."

Ms. Fernandez countered that while it would be nice to make such determinations within the alotted amount of time, the commission lacked the resources and would be forced to abandon hundreds or even thousands of properties a year, considering the commission would be required under the new bills to either agree to consider the project—within a number of months, as required by yet another bill—or agree never to consider it again. Ms. Fernandez pointed out that the commission's portfolio had grown considerably over the past decade at the same time that its resources have been cut (by the mayor, not the council, as everyone was quick to point out).

[Update: A reader points out that in fact Landmarks' budgets have increased considerably under the Bloomberg administration, up 60 percent from $3 million in 2003 to $4.8 million this year. Staffing has risen 40 percent, to 60 full-time employees.]

"This is an end-run on landmarks masquerading as concern for the community," Paul Graziano, a Queens preservationist, told The Observer. "While these are legitimate community concerns, they know the commission cannot afford to do this, and in the end, if the bills are passed, they will only benefit the real estate interests.

The two bills everyone seemed to agree on was one that would halt any construction work on a building as soon as it was calendared for landmarks consideration, preventing landlords from damaging their property as their value is debated. New permits may not be filed, but in some cases existing ones were executed. The other bill would extend protections for historic buildings near construction sites. Currently, properties within 90 feet must be given special attention when nearby work takes place, and the bill would extend that perimeter to 150 feet.

What had preservationists most incensed were two bills that had been newly introduced and that they saw as severely undermining the purpose and spirit of the Landmarks Law. Mr. Bankoff was quick to point out that these two bills were largely ignored by the council members.

The first big problem was a bill that would grandfather in current building materials. A good example would be a wood-framed or brick house that had vinyl siding put up in the intervening years. Any renovation would require the restoration of the original material. Preservationists and the commission argue this restores a neighborhood closer to its original character and is one of the chief purposes of creating a historic district. Landowners and some council members countered that this creates onerous requirements for owners and even ignores the intervening history. "Technology for aluminum siding has gotten very good," Councilman Comrie quipped.

By far the biggest concern was a requirement to craft an economic analysis for any proposed landmarking. "For too long now, landmarking has been misused to address quality of life, neighborhood and development issues where zoning would be more appropriate," Michael Slattery, executive vice-president at the Real Estate Board, said during his testimony.

Speaker after speaker insisted that economics was far from the first concern where landmarks were concerned. "The bottom line is that such buildings provide more tax revenue and sell at a premium over unprotected buildings," historian Michael Henry Adams said, reading testimony on behalf of State Senator Bill Perkins, a former council man.

"Aesthetic issues are equally, or even more important, than economic ones where landmarks are concerned," Andrea Goldwyn, a representative of the Landmarks Conservancy said. "These buildings serve a higher purpose."

The concern about these bills may have been misplaced. Mr. Bankoff said that he feared any of them could come to a vote now that a hearing has been held, but according to officials at the council, and repeated assurances by committee members during yesterday's hearings, no votes on the newest bills will be held until future hearings are held to discuss them further. The flood of bills was simply meant as a way to clear the council's legislative queue, considering all landmarks bills that had been languishing as well as any other relevant issues presented in the new bills, Councilman Lander told The Observer.

"The idea here was to provide an opportunity for people to look at and comment on a diversity of bills and we'll go from there," Councilman Lander said. "A lot of the pertinent issues in these bills still have to be addressed."

Still, preservationists are not entirely comfortable with these assurances. "Few bills under consideration today will advance the cause of historic preservation in any way," Cristobel Gough, secretary of the Society for the Architecture of the City, said. "Several arc calculated to undercut  existing protections, eliminate necessary checks and balances and cripple the Landmarks Preservation Commission."

mchaban [at] observer.com | @MC_NYC

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

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.

Council Speaker Christine Quinn, the bill’s most powerful champion, decided at the last minute to exempt one of the city’s biggest proposed developments from the bill’s wage mandate. The proposed Hudson Yards project, which calls for a mixed-use development on 26 acres on the Far West Side, will not have to adhere to the law’s requirement that workers receive $10 an hour if they receive benefits, and $11.50 if they do not.

Any project that receives more than $1 million in city subsidies is covered under the “prevailing wage” bill—except for Hudson Yards. Why? Well, even Speaker Quinn realizes that the Hudson Yards project is critical to the development of the Far West Side. It’s now or never for an area that has been in desperate need of development for decades. Ms. Quinn, a likely mayoral aspirant next year, clearly realized that the bill could doom the project.

But what of other projects that will not get done now because of this unnecessary mandate? If the bill was bad for Hudson Yards, it surely is bad for other projects and other developers. That speaks to the bill’s job-killing flaws—flaws that should have stopped this legislation in its tracks.

Unfortunately, it is now law. Ms. Quinn will have to answer for this on the campaign trail next year.

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. It’s called a “prevailing wage” bill, and it is nothing less than a sop to private-sector unions that have made this bill a top priority. Workers may receive as much double or even triple the current minimum wage of $7.25 an hour on most subsidized projects.

The bill grew out of the so-called “living wage” movement, which sought to mandate enormous increases in labor costs on projects receiving government subsidies. “Living wage” bills have been passed in several municipalities throughout the nation. Fortunately, the movement sputtered when it came to New York.

The “prevailing wage” bill is a compromise, but while it is better than the “living wage” mandate, it still reeks of improper government interference in the free market. What’s more, it represents a political straddle on the part of Council Speaker Christine Quinn, who wants to be mayor and figures that she needs the support of the city’s politically potent unions. She could have killed this bill. Instead, she sought to please both sides, and likely will please nobody.

Albany and City Hall are both trying to climb out of fiscal holes created by politicians who simply couldn’t say no to special interests. Mayor Bloomberg and his predecessor, Rudolph Giuliani, have created a new template for governance in the city, while Governor Cuomo seems intent on doing the same at the state level.

The trouble is that the old politics of special-interest payoffs has not disappeared, even if it has been discredited. Old paradigms never die. They don’t even fade away. They go into hiding, lurking in the shadows until they attach themselves to somebody willing to cut a deal in exchange for high office.

Speaker Quinn has shown herself all too ready to make a deal rather than make a decision. We don’t need and can no longer afford that kind of “leadership.”

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. Critics rightly note that grades can be disproportionately affected by issues that have little to do with food preparation. One critic noted that a cracked toilet cover or a gap near a pipe has led inspectors to issue something less than an “A” grade. That could drive customers away on the false assumption that the grade reflects sloppy food preparation or a dirty kitchen. (About three in four restaurants have earned an “A,” according to city statistics.)

Critics also complain that inspectors are not consistent enough and that they are not sufficiently knowledgeable about the industry they monitor.

There’s enough unease and unhappiness in the restaurant world to revisit the grading system to ensure that it is fair, consistent and not punitive. The mayor suggests that any effort to water down the grading system will lead inevitably to roaches crawling on dining room floors and spoiled food served to unsuspecting diners.

But there was never a sense, before the grading system was introduced, that standards in the city’s restaurants were on the decline. That’s not to say the old system was better. But it does suggest that the current system is too intrusive and arbitrary.

The City Council should ensure that the inspection system is fair, and that restaurant owners are not unduly penalized for minor violations.

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.

The mayor’s latest budget contains several painful but arguably necessary spending cuts, but in keeping with Mr. Bloomberg’s track record, it contains no plans to increase taxes. The mayor has managed to withstand a series of emergency-level budget crises by demanding creativity from his managers and productivity from the city’s work force rather than by relying on tax hike upon tax hike. His eventual successor will inherit that legacy and will be expected to show similar determination and common sense.

That is not to say that Mr. Bloomberg is a fiscal magician who has been able to close budget gaps like this year’s $2 billion deficit without pain and sacrifice. His new budget, which calls for $68.7 billion in spending in the fiscal year beginning July 1, will cut spending on libraries by over $70 million and slash funding to various cultural institutions by $40 million.

But there are no large-scale layoffs in his plan, no threats to eliminate hundreds of teaching positions in the city’s public schools. He has proposed eliminating 20 fire companies in his endless but clearly doomed effort to restructure the Fire Department to meet 21^st-century realities, but the City Council can be counted on to keep the companies open. One of these years, perhaps, City Hall will figure out how to better deploy the FDNY’s resources at a time of record declines in fires.

Mr. Bloomberg has been in office long enough to have governed through two recessions—the decline that followed the dot-com bust and 9/11 and, of course, the ongoing great recession, which has cast a shadow over budget-making since 2008. There’s no question that the quality and quantity of city services has been affected. But the mayor’s emphasis on innovation, creativity and accountability—not to mention his common-sense approach to taxation—helped to minimize the pain.

In announcing his new budget plan, Mr. Bloomberg noted that “cities across the country have struggled to keep their heads above water—laying off teachers, police officers or firefighters, with a few having to declare bankruptcy. We’ve avoided those painful steps.”

Actually, the city has done more than simply avoid worst-case scenarios. It declined to live large when times were good—it’s hard to remember, but there were a few fat years in the middle of Mr. Bloomberg’s tenure—and it demanded reform and accountability in the face of hard times.

That’s not a bad legacy, even if it’s not the one Mr. Bloomberg prefers to leave behind.