Does litter stop if it doesn't stop here? (Stephen Nessen/WNYC)

You can take away the garbage cans but can you take away the garbage? The MTA, in expanding its no trash can pilot program last month claimed that the program would make subway stations trash can, and thereby trash, free. But Upper East Side residents, who have been left holding the coffee cup/apple core/dirty napkins, say that the policy has done just the opposite.

In a recent survey conducted by Council member Jessica Lappin's office, 66 percent of 218 respondents said that they'd noticed more trash at the 57th Street F Train station since the garbage cans went away. But even people who hadn't slipped on any banana peels in the last 30 days thought the removal was a bad idea—93 percent of 515 respondents.

When the expansion of the pilot program from two stations to ten was announced at the end of August, naysayers pointed to the piles of cleverly stashed trash being left under benches and behind pillars at the can-less stations. And now, Upper East Siders claim that there is a growing mountain of evidence—literally, heaps of it—that prove the program isn't working.

“As you might expect, taking away the trash cans doesn't mean people magically stop producing garbage. In particular, we hearing that the amount of litter at the 57th Street Station has gone up since the bins were removed,” said Ms. Lappin in a release about the survey. “The MTA should toss out this plan and put the garbage cans back.”

In response to the survey, the MTA wrote in an email to The Observer that the first two stations in the pilot do show initial positive results and that the new stations are being "closely monitored and the results will be analyzed to determine where removing trash cans works best and whether to continue the program in the future."

In Ms. Lappin's survey, 28 percent of respondents did say that the amount of trash in the station had remained basically the same, which would seem to prove the MTA's point: that people will take their trash with them if there's no place to throw it. Or, at least, the kind of people who conscientiously seek out garbage cans will be inclined to take their trash with them, thereby reducing the rat population and trash pickup. Although it's anyone's guess how crafty subway riders might be getting at hiding their trash, or how much might be ending up on the tracks, conveniently compacted by the trains.

The PATH trains and the London Underground have both eliminated garbage cans, allegedly without disastrous results, (although a reader pointed out that the London Underground only removed the cans, not the trash bags) but where does the garbage go? The removal of trash cans at the two pilot locations in Flushing, Queens and Greenwich Village has not lead to a greater burden for the street level trash cans handled by the city's Sanitation Department, according to The New York Times.

Unless New York City residents can eliminate the kind of packaging and disposable goods that are garbage's raw material, it does have to go somewhere. And New Yorkers, who tend to walk a lot and haul their belongings on their backs and shoulders through crowded streets, can't exactly be blamed for not wanting to hang onto their would-be refuse. When the expansion of the program was announced, at least one subway newsstand vendor admitted he'd been accepting trash from confused riders.

Still, MTA chair Joseph Lhota has been extremely optimistic. When the expansion was announced in August he urged rides, via The New York Times, to treat the subway “as you would treat your home.”

Of course, we would never throw trash on the floor at home. But then, we have trash cans.

kvelsey@observer.com

Watch it, kid! (Getty)

“New Yorkers want what they want, when they want it, but that doesn’t excuse the disregard of safety—this is not the Wild West.”

Bronx Councilman James Vacca was sitting behind the long desk inside the 14th floor hearing room at 250 Broadway as a hearing of the Transportation Committee, which he oversees, was just getting started. He had taken the reins, or rather the handlebars, as he so often does when the committee turns its focus on the state of cycling in the city, a subject that gives Mr. Vacca, along with a few million New Yorkers, a great deal of consternation.

Today, the committee was tackling commercial cyclists and deliverymen—figuratively, though they probably would not mind actually tackling a few scofflaw two wheelers if given the chance.

Specifically, the committee was taking up four commercial biking bills aimed at furthering the education of commercial cyclists and enforcing current regulations. The focus—and when it came to Councilwoman Jessica Lappin, the target—was certainly the DOT and Intro. 910, a proposed law that sought to give the department enforcement power.

So what’s the issue? Well, nobody likes unsafe delivery or messenger cyclists terrorizing pedestrians and causing havoc with motorists (not even regular bikers). At the same time, everyone wants their take-out delivered the moment they hang up the phone and their documents whipped across town in the blink of an eye. Even Ms. Lappin accepts that “New Yorkers want their hot food in a hot minute”—yet we also need to feel safe on the streets. With commercial cyclists now weaving in and out of traffic like yellow cabs, what’s a wise government to do? Whose job is it to keep us safe? Won’t someone think of the children?

To address transportation concerns related to commercial cycling, the DOT launched a unit of six deputized inspectors in July to educate restaurants and other businesses about the city’s rules of commercial bicycles, and to issue summonses to repeat offenders. So far the unit has targeted the West Side of Manhattan; by the end of the year it plans to have reached the entire borough and, in addition, Sunset Park, Brooklyn. (It is the borough’s Chinatown, so those little cardboard boxes of rice are no doubt causing much havoc.)

Although advertizing themselves as a force seeking to both educate and enforce, from the looks of things—and from the sounds of the rumblings in this morning’s meeting—the DOT are doing a lot, even too much, of the former and not enough of the latter. Kate Slevin, assistant commissioner for intergovernmental affairs, assured the committee that enforcement will come in January and that, for now, focusing on educating the businesses that send forth these delivery bikers day in, day out is the best way to proceed.

Ms. Lappin, however, disagrees, arguing that enforcement, and not education is what the city vitally needs. Yes, preaching about the importance of fluorescent vest-ware, another piece of legislation discussed during the meeting, is all well and good, but it’s not what the city ought to be focusing on. “People see cyclists—sight isn’t the problem!” Ms. Lappin complained. Councilman Vacca appears to agree. He argued the action the department has taken thus far is not enough. “I need to make sure that this cooperative relationship is bearing fruit,” he said of the work between DOT and the NYPD. “I’m not aware of any fruits from the co-operation—beyond education.”

And while we’re on the topic of that fruitful—or fruitless—relationships: Is each partner holding up its end of the bargain? Upper West Side Councilwoman Gale Brewer suggested, first half-joking, then quite seriously, that the NYPD is probably the better positioned agency to be tackling this problem. “They order from the restaurants everyday,” she said of cops walking the beat. “The know the owners, they know what’s going on.

But this debate also gets at the heart of cycling enforcement in general (which, let’s not forget, has been on the rise). The big question seems to be if we want our officers, of whom there are fewer and fewer every year thanks to budget cuts, to be turning their attention away from other crimes and onto those of bikers.

Much of the testimony this morning placed blame for the commercial cycling crisis on the riders’ employers. Upper East Side Assemblyman Brian Kavanaugh joined Mr. Vacca, among others, in leveling such claims. There is a feeling that not only do commercial cyclists knowingly break the law in order to perform to the standards expected by their employers, but also that employers encourage such behavior. There is, however, no general consensus. City Hospitality Alliance founder Robert Bookman spoke up in defense of the businesses under attack, the majority of which he assured the committee encourage their employees to comply with the law, and certainly to do so “without a wink and a nod."

And what about recreational cyclists? The issue of cycling safety is only increasing as the city encourages non-commercial cyclists, too, to follow the fad. Susan Suskind, director of the New York Alliance for Pedestrian Safety, rightly what’s being done to educate those two-wheel travelers?

Mr Vacca insists: “Once cyclists know the rules of the law, there’s no excuse for breaking them.” But tell that to all the jaywalkers and speeding drivers. Maybe this is a problem of humanity that will never be solved? Will four City Council bills really be enough?

P.U.! (Crain's)

The Upper East Side waterfront is finally setting sale, and plans continue to emerge for what just might be built there. Yet there is one project that continues to miff and tiff the silk-stockinged hordes: a marine waste transfer station set to be reactivated on 91st Street.

Locals argue that the facility is inappropriate, sitting in the middle of a public park as it is. One resident told The Observer last year how his daughter's softball team was mocked by teams down from the South Bronx, even, so you know this plan is bad. (No offense to the South Bronx, just saying.)

The Bloomberg administration counters, rightfully we might add, that every neighborhood should be responsible for its fair share of the city's waste management system. In other words, stop dumping on the South Bronx.

The city won the last of a legion of lawsuits filed by Upper East Siders last year, and now the Department of Design and Construction has released a request for proposals to develop the project. Already 55 firms have inquired about the project.

"Moving forward on this project represents historic progress on the mayor's solid waste management plan, which will greatly improve the sustainability of our waste disposal, help fulfill the goals of PlanNYC and improve fairness across all five boroughs," a Bloomberg spokesman told Crain's yesterday.

But the community, including some influential public officials, have vowed to continue their battle against the waste transfer station. "A garbage dump doesn’t belong in a residential neighborhood, and we won’t stop fighting until the city trashes this plan," local Councilwoman Jessica Lappin told DNAinfo.

mchaban [at] observer.com | @MC_NYC

Mr. Mayor, tear down this fence! (Geoffrey Croft/NYC Parks Advocates)

It appears they have opened the open space floodgates on the East Side of Manhattan.

Ever since the city reached a land deal with the United Nations to help build a new East River park, a parade of new developments have taken place in Manhattan's rarefied reaches. There are new plans for the U.N. and the esplanade beside it, and the Related Companies has finally revealed new plans for Rupert Playground, where it wants to build condos and a medical facility.

Reversing the karma of the public-to-private transfer at the playground, the city yesterday reached a settlement with Sutton Place South, the East 50s co-op that for over a century has controlled a private park overlooking the river. When the FDR was built, the co-op was given control of a new park built on piers over it, but that deal lapsed in 1990, though it was not brought to light until a few years ago. As with so many things in the world, litigation ensued.

"When I go the grocery store, or in the elevator in my building, even though this has been going on forever, people would still ask me about it, what's going on," local City Councilwoman Jessica Lappin told The Observer. "People were really hungry and excited about it. That's the nice thing about coming to a negotiated settlement like this, we have a solution everyone can live with.

Under the settlement, the city will gain control of a 10,000-square-foot section of the park closest to the water. Part of the legal wrangling was over exactly how much land would have to be relinquished, and it was determined to be what was equivalent to the high water mark. Whereas before the co-op had demanded $10 million for the land, it is now actually contributing $1 million to a new park, with another $1 million coming from Ms. Lappin. “We are pleased to have reached an agreement that provides a valuable amenity for our community,” Lucy Lamphere, president of the co-op, said in a statement.

There are still those in the community who believe Sutton Place should not be entitled to any of the land. "It's good to have the new park," Geoff Croft, head of NYC Parks Advocates, said. "It's just that the co-op board has been dragging this out for so long, I wasn't aware of any need to compromise."

The Parks Department has tapped local landscape architects Dirtworks to redesign the park and better integrate it into the surrounding neighborhood. "Instead of this little pocket park, you'll have a much grander feel, especially once it is integrated with the rest of the waterfront," Ms. Lappin said.

mchaban [at] observer.com | @MC_NYC

The first lady recently embraced paid sick days in a talk with the business leaders, according to the Times.

In the November 12 letter, the lawmakers said, “We believe that with the leadership of women like you all Americans will no longer have to make the choice between going to work or taking care of a loved one." It went on to say “we are inviting you to attend the New York City Council hearing on Tuesday, November 17th, at 1 PM to address the importance of cities like New York leading the way for the rest of the nation.”

Locally, the battle over paid sick days is one of the top priorities for the Working Families Party, and is proving to be a thorny issue for City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, whose allies in labor support it, but whose friends in the business community oppose it. Whether or not Obama accepts the invitation, making the invitation public helps spread the impression that the White House backs this kind of legislation. And that's a notion advocates are likely to remind critics about.

The letter was co-signed by City Council members Gale Brewer, Letitia James, Melissa Mark Viverito, Annabel Palma, Jessica Lappin and Helen Foster.

As I noted earlier, Garodnick's district mirrors a good portion of the Congressional district, and he has a base of support in the voter-rich Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village area.

He also has $440,268 raised for what should be an easy re-election to the Council this year.

I emailed a spokesman for Garodnick at BerlinRosen about whether he'd run for the Congressional seat and got back this response:

"Right now I'm focused on getting things done for East Siders --like passing the City's first Green Energy Code and addressing our school overcrowding issues -- and I'm running for re-election in November. It's extremely flattering that a number of people have encouraged me to consider a run for Congress, but that's in the future and something I will consider at the appropriate time."

Other possible candidates for that seat include Assemblyman Jonathan Bing, State Senator Liz Krueger, and City Councilwoman Jessica Lappin.

She'd have to give up her House seat to do so. (Which is actually quite a good reason to believe that, at the end of the day, she won't run for Senate, and that this will all have been more about David Paterson's decision to pass her over for a junior colleague than anything else. But for the sake of this exercise, let's assume she does it.)

Who would replace her?

In Maloney's Congressional district, according to the State Board of Elections, there are 264,561 registered Democrats, 72,088 registered Republicans, and 93,304 voters not registered in any party. In the 2005 Council races in the heart of the district, the Democratic candidates (Dan Gardonick and Jessica Lappin) crushed their moderate Republican challengers (Patrick Murphy and Joel Zinberg, respectively). 

So the next representative from her East Side-plus-a-bit-of-Queens district will almost certainly be a Democrat.

With that in mind, here are some possible replacements for Maloney if she doesn't run for reelection in 2010. They are presented in no particular order.

As always, if I'm leaving anyone out, let me know.

Dan Garodnick

He’s a hardworking city councilman, a lawyer who grew up in in Peter Cooper Village, the densely populated part of the district that is driven almost exclusively by one issue: affordable housing. Gardonick's Council district includes a chunk of this area, mirroring, somewhat, the Congressional district, and giving him an edge over other electeds who are mostly known in the midtown part of the district.

Jessica Lappin

She represents the district right next door to Garodnick's, and worked as the chief of staff to the previous incumbent, the former council speaker, Gifford Miller.

She generally avoids headline-grabbing gestures and confrontation, building a profile instead through diligent constituent service. When she considered a run for public advocate earlier this year, her good working relationship with Michael Bloomberg was thought to be an asset, especially among voters in her district.

A source close to Lappin said she could consider a run if the Maloney seat were vacant.

Jonathan Bing

He was elected to the Assembly in 2002, just a few years before Garodnick and Lappin got into office in 2005. His district doesn’t go as far south, or east, as the Congressional district, but it does include a chunk of it in midtown.

He has a close working relationship with Maloney, and the two share a political club, the Lexington Democratic Club, which is a focal point of establishment power in that part of Manhattan. He's been in Albany long enough to have a legislative record to run on, but not long enough, arguably, to be considered part of what makes Albany dysfunctional.

Eva Moskowitz

The former city councilwoman who now lives and runs a charter school in Harlem seems to miss politics pretty intensely.

Coming into the race off the bench could enable her to argue that her more recent experience gives her an advantage over other candidates. She lost a race for Manhattan borough president in 2005, but has residual name recognition and working-mom biographical credibility in the district. (Images of her pushing her stroller through the district are hard to erase from my memory, at least).

The teachers union will not be helpful to her candidacy.

Liz Krueger

She came into the State Senate as a liberal champion, having nearly ousted longtime Republican incumbent Roy Goodman in 2001, then, after he retired, vanquishing Goodman's protégé John Ravitz.

After that victory, she fended off an expensive challenge from Andrew Eristoff, a self-funded candidate who was, I believe, the last serious challenger she had.

She isn’t considered as close to the Maloney political operation on the East Side as some of the other potential candidates, which, in a primary in this district, doesn't help.

Eric Gioia

He’s an exceptionally energetic councilman from the Queens side of the district who will have just gone through a citywide campaign for public advocate by the time this seat opens up next year. Even if he loses—and right now he's polling last—the money and effort spent in that race could greatly help his name identification.

He’s good at raising money in small, publicly matchable increments, and he's exceptionally good at getting media attention. 

While only a small part of the district is in Queens—his personal narrative of growing up the son of a florist may not help so much on the Upper East Side—a divided field of Manhattan candidates, plus a near-perfect campaign, could get him there.

Michael Gianaris

He’s an assemblyman, also from the Queens side of the district. He’s a Harvard graduate and former counsel to Sheldon Silver who did an amazing job of early fund-raising for an attorney general race back in 2006.

He skipped the race then, but made valuable contacts. He's smart and has the everyman thing.

Again, the combination of a crowded Manhattan field and a near-perfect campaign—especially if Gioia isn't around—makes his candidacy a totally credible idea.

George McDonald

He's the founder and president of The Doe Fund. Spokesman Ken Frydman, who once worked for Rudy Giuliani, sent a statement to reporters saying McDonald "will form an exploratory committee to run in the Democratic primary for Carolyn Maloney's Congressional seat should she chose to run for the senate." He ran for the seat in 1988, when it was held by Republican Bill Green. Four years later, Green was defeated by Maloney.

“Jessica weighed a number of factors and at the end of the day decided the right decision for her this year was to run for re-election for the city council,” said Mark Guma, the adviser.

Lappin, a freshman City Council member from Manhattan, would have been the only woman in the race, and would have been the only candidate (for what it's worth politically) with a good working relationship with Michael Bloomberg.

Lappin had been considering entering the race and was acquiring fund-raisers to help position her for the contest.

But running would have meant giving up her seat in the Council for a risky citywide race against a number of veteran politicians, including Mark Green, the former public advocate.

]]> Jessica Lappin will not enter the public advocate’s race, according to her campaign adviser.

“Jessica weighed a number of factors and at the end of the day decided the right decision for her this year was to run for re-election for the city council,” said Mark Guma, the adviser.

Lappin, a freshman City Council member from Manhattan, would have been the only woman in the race, and would have been the only candidate (for what it's worth politically) with a good working relationship with Michael Bloomberg.

Lappin had been considering entering the race and was acquiring fund-raisers to help position her for the contest.

But running would have meant giving up her seat in the Council for a risky citywide race against a number of veteran politicians, including Mark Green, the former public advocate.

]]> http://observer.com/2009/03/lappin-wont-run-for-public-advocate-2/feed/ 0 jhanasobserver http://observer.com/2009/02/gotbaum-and-most-of-the-gang/#comments Wed, 11 Feb 2009 18:55:43 -0400 http://observer.com/2009/02/gotbaum-and-most-of-the-gang/ Azi Paybarah http://www.observer.com/2009/02/gotbaum-and-most-of-the-gang/ Here’s Public Advocate Betsy Gotbaum several of the people who want to replace her when she leaves office: John Liu, Bill de Blasio and Jessica Lappin.

The rally was to urge the City Council and mayor to amend the city’s human rights law to expand employment protection to caregivers.

It’s an issue with a lot of support among activists and labor groups.

Politically, it looks like there's at least one unintended consequence of this crowded advocate’s race: Gotbaum, who critics have panned for being inactive, is suddenly popular.

Like Lappin, Green is from Manhattan, posing another challenge to her potential candidacy in what already looks to be a very competitive Democratic primary.

Lappin has begun staffing up.