Yankees' Lonn Trost Claims Poverty To Hide Documents

The New York Yankees have been, are and most likely will continue to be baseball's richest team with enough cash to buy an unending stream of talent. Money has never been an issue for Steinbrenner's team and with billions in public aid (whether the public knew about it or not) the Yanks cut costs on their new stadium. Yet when Assemblyman Brodsky questioned Lonn Trost about the communiques surrounding the deals made with city and state officials, Trost complains that it would be too expensive to get everything together.

From The Times-Union:

Lonn Trost, chief operating officer of the New York Yankees, dug in, so to speak, under questioning from state Assemblyman Richard Brodsky. The ball club itself was in Cleveland on Monday. The New York action took place in state Supreme Court in Albany.

Mr. Trost went for the bottom line, uttering the figure $5.5 million. That, he says, would be the cost of gathering all the documents Mr. Brodsky is trying to obtain about the publicly subsidized construction of the new Yankee Stadium.

More casual fans, less intensely interested in the inside baseball of stadium construction and other off-the-field arcanum, can be forgiven for wondering of Mr. Trost: Your point, sir?

There should be no point, because mentioning $5.5 million is nothing to that ballclub. With a team payroll of $201.5 million dollars (not to mention the front office or those that work in the stadium), providing those emails to Brodsky and the people he represents should not be a problem. Then when you factor in the billion(s) that the Yankees took from the taxpayers, we as New Yorkers have every right to see exactly how the deal was done.

Brodsky's Bright Idea To Save NY More Than $2 Billion

Assemblyman Brodsky is never afraid to voice his opinion, especially when it comes to the best interests of his district. His latest outrage is directed at the producers of New York's power, electric power. Specifically the way that electricity is bid for is fundamentally flawed and biased for the suppliers, not the consumers. So Brodsky's suggestion (and hopefully a subsequent law) is to change the process to put the power, so to speak, in the people's hands.

From Press Connects:

Assemblyman Richard Brodsky, D-Greenburgh, Tuesday introduced a bill that would abolish the way the price of electricity is currently set - known as "pay as bid" - and replace it with one where producers would be paid what they were willing to take.

The current system, Brodsky said, is "insane ... It is absurd, destructive and needs to be changed." He estimated changing it would save ratepayers about $2.2 billion a year.

Sounds good to me. Does that sound good to you? Well, not so much if you are a part of the industry that supplies that power. They have a few things to say about what Brodsky wants to do:

The head of an industry trade group, however, said the claims are wrong. Gavin Donohue of Independent Power Producers of New York says the system encourages cleaner generators of electricity such as wind or hydro power, which can profit from higher prices. Less efficient, greater polluting and older coal plants would profit less or not at all under the system, he said.

Of course, things worked just fine before we started deregulating the energy market. In fact, it worked a whole lot better because companies were more responsible to the people that they supplied power to. After deregulation we saw travesties like the Enron debacle and the interest in stockholders instead of the grid that has been falling apart (remember that blackout in 2003?). Brodsky's approach should be combined within a greater movement that puts power back into the hands of the people, from energy regulation to fiscal regulation and everything in between. Now if we can just find someone willing to take a strong position behind those ideals and enact them. Governor Paterson? Governor Cuom....well I guess that is still up for debate, but in the meantime, big props to Assemblyman Brodsky.

NYC Worked Hard For Perks At New Yankee Stadium

Ah damn. I've been out of town for only a few days (relaxing days that they were in a warm clime) and missed so much. Granted it was hard not to watch the terrible tragedy unfold in Mumbai but for the most part I steered clear of politics, opting to read a few books and remembering to be grateful for all that I have in my life. Nevertheless, back here in NYC there is plenty to be outraged over and one instance is continually provoking ire in the Bronx. That would be Yankee Stadium and the Bloomberg Administration's involvement with it.

From The NY Times:

The Bloomberg administration was so intent on obtaining a free luxury suite for its own use at the new Yankee Stadium, newly released e-mail messages show, that the mayor’s aides pushed for a larger suite and free food, and eventually gave the Yankees 250 additional parking spaces in exchange.

The parking spaces were given to the team for the private use of Yankees officials, players and others; the spaces were originally planned for public parking. The city also turned over the rights to three new billboards along the Major Deegan Expressway, and whatever revenue they generate, as part of the deal.

The e-mail messages between the aides to Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and Yankees executives were obtained and released by Assemblyman Richard L. Brodsky, Democrat of Westchester, who questions whether taxpayers were adequately protected in the city’s deal with the team.

Obviously that sense of entitlement doesn't simply stop with the Mayor, the attitude is commonplace throughout his side of City Hall. To make deals like this and work so hard to ensure your piece of the pie while the city has many more pressing matters in front of it is a travesty. They're so busy hammering out perks for themselves at Gracie Mansion that the financial toll on the taxpayers of New York that are helping to subsidize the project are but a mere afterthought, if that.

The whole affair stinks to high hell and instead of being ashamed of their actions, Bloomberg's aides try to push the matter aside by saying that every city official gets perks like these established for the Mayor's office. I really don't care if there are benefits for city officials in Cairo, Kansas City or Brussels, here in New York City we must be able to trust our government to do the right thing. Not by always looking out for the few in the office but for the city they have been hired to work for.

Brodsky Blasts Yankees And The City

The Yankees are about to be eliminated from making the playoffs any day now, but that is not what has Westchester State Assemblyman Richard Brodsky so upset. What is at stake is the new Yankee Stadium and what it is costing New York City's taxpayers. Supposedly the Yankees threatened to leave the city if they didn't get hundreds of millions in tax breaks (where the hell they would go, I don't know). Then city officials "caved" to their demands and in return got a sweet luxury box. That wasn't enough for Steinbrenner's organization, so when they asked for an additional $250 million, people like Assemblyman Brodsky and Congressman Kucinich started to get involved.

From The NY Times:

New York City and the Yankees may have violated federal tax regulations and state laws in using $943 million in tax-exempt bonds to build the baseball team’s new stadium, according to a report issued on Tuesday by Assemblyman Richard L. Brodsky.

Saying the taxpayers are footing the bill for the $1.3 billion Yankee Stadium in the Bronx and are getting little in return other than higher ticket prices and the loss of parkland, Mr. Brodsky, a frequent critic of the deal, said that the report stems from a review of thousands of pages of previously unreleased documents.

Although city officials and the Yankees hotly disputed many of the findings, the report concluded that the city and the state invested as much as $850 million in cash and tax breaks in the new stadium, which sits across 161st Street from the team’s historic home in the South Bronx.

“This stadium is being built by the people of the city and the state of New York,” Mr. Brodsky said during a press conference at the north end of the new stadium, at 164th Street and Jerome Avenue. “In return, they’re getting almost nothing. This deal does not serve the public’s interest. It serves the Yankees’ interest.”

Of course the Yankees protested the lengthy and damning report, but that is to be expected (one excuse is that they employed people to build it, as if the stadium would have magically appeared by itself). The facts are that the team and those that helped them to acquire taxpayer funds with little to no benefit to the community.

Brodsky is taking his report to Washington in order to bolster Kucinich's mission to make it tougher for corporate entities to take such advantage of public dollars and eminent domain laws. Hopefully we'll see some reform on this issue soon. Though until we have a President that isn't a former baseball team owner who took advantage of these tax breaks himself, President Obama will have to be the one to sign the bill into law.

MTA Claims Nassau Owes Them $100 Mil

The MTA to say the least is becoming more and more of a shoddy operation. Just yesterday me and a few hundred other people had to contend with "electrical problems" on the 4 train (5 and 6 as well between Brooklyn Bridge and 23rd Street. A normal 5-10 minute ride became thirty. That of course is a relatively small problem when you look at the size of the MTA. Losing more than one hundred million dollars to Nassau County is a whole other matter.

From The NY Daily News:

The Nassau funding flap came up briefly at an Assembly hearing Wednesday. Assemblyman Richard Brodsky (D-Westchester) told MTA CEO Elliot Sander: "Go to court! When people don't pay the MTA, what do you do?"

MTA spokesman Jeremy Soffin said the MTA would consider court action but would prefer to have negotiations with Nassau.

When the MTA began running buses for Nassau in 1973, the county was supposed to fill gaps between MTA-collected revenues and expenses, Soffin said. Nassau stopped covering those shortfalls in 2000. Not wanting to cut service, the MTA has paid for Long Island Bus deficits totaling $88 million since 2000, Soffin said.

In the late 1990s, the MTA bailed out Nassau by loaning it more than $48 million. Nassau was supposed to pay the MTA $97.5 million for commuter-railroad construction projects but still owes $20 million, the MTA said.

How ridiculous is this? Nassau stopped paying its obligations beginning eight years ago and the MTA still wants to negotiate? Get your ass to court and sue them for that money. If they make an agreement and refuse to honor it, then take them to court. It isn't like Nassau is a poor county.

When the MTA is considering another round of fare hikes immediately after raising the fare a couple of months ago, perhaps they should consider getting their finances in order before coming at their commuters. Just when I think that the MTA can't be any more of a joke (especially after visiting London) they continue to amaze me.

Another MTA Fare Hike On The Horizon???

The economic recession in our country has begun and here in New York the effects are being felt more and more every single day. With the budget coming out on Tuesday, cuts are expected across the board and New York City's very own M.T.A. is no exception to being slashed. Paterson wants to chop $60 million out of the transit authority's budget and possibly bring their budget gap to over a quarter billion dollars. And do you know what that means for those of us that ride the rails?

From The Daily News:

The cuts would widen a $200 million budget deficit that the Metropolitan Transportation Authority is projecting for next year.

Paterson's proposal also raises concern that other money the MTA believed it would receive after hashing out its financial plans last year with former Gov. Eliot Spitzer could be in jeopardy.

"A fare increase next year is almost inevitable" if the Paterson proposal survives budget negotiations with the Senate and Assembly, according to Assemblyman Richard Brodsky (D-Westchester).

I disagree with Brodsky's opposition to congestion pricing, but this would certainly continue the governmental beat down of the middle class in New York. State leaders can't possibly think that it is o.k. to tax average New Yorkers with fare increases and handicap many people who are trying to catch up with government assistance. The only welfare that seems to be popular these days in the halls of government is for corporate giants that can only afford two yachts instead of three.

The MTA Grinch

There are ten days to Christmas, but only four days left until the board members of the MTA decide on the fateful fare increase. The Governor and the Mayor have unfortunately spoken in favor of the hikes and the board members themselves aren't keen on listening to the public and many from the legislature that represent them up in Albany. In fact these board members have no clue about what it takes to live paycheck to paycheck or even ride the MTA themselves (I don't think you can count Dale Hemmerdinger's boat as part of the ferry fleet).

Now as the deadline approaches, more information continues to pour in that shows the much vaunted deficits of 2009 have been shrinking considerably. Those monstrous deficits have been the impetus for the fare hike, but now it seems that the MTA clearly does not understand its own budget.

From The Daily News:

In July, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority predicted a $1.4 billion deficit for 2009 if it failed to reduce some expenses, tap into surplus funds, raise fares and make other moves.

New budget documents now show the authority's planned deficit-closing measures will narrow the gap to $561 million - a 61% reduction.

The decrease can be achieved without charging more for buses, subways, commuter trains, as well as bridges and tunnels, the documents show.

An MTA spokesman wouldn't discuss the impact of other moves, including moving $81 million from a downsizing account into another account, set to go before MTA committees Monday and the full board Wednesday.

But Assemblyman Richard Brodsky (D-Westchester) said, "The more data we have, the more clear it is we don't need a fare increase next year."

The collective heads at the MTA are so thick headed and stubborn, they'd probably suggest a fare increase if that $1.4 billion deficit was a surplus. Brodsky is right, there is no need for an increase in fares. It is a rare time to see our politicians on the right side of the issue at hand...if only these board members were on their game as well.

Fare Hikes Opposed By N.Y. Legislature

As the M.T.A. board meetings loom whether to increase subway fares, a large collaboration of community groups and state representatives got together at City Hall to oppose any fare hikes this year. The group wants the M.T.A. to hold off until at least April so that the government can come up with funding that can avert a fare increase. It would be much better to wait for state and/or federal money than to put an extra burden on the millions of New Yorkers that ride the rails everyday.

From The New York Times:

If the authority holds off until next April, it would give Gov. Eliot Spitzer and the Legislature “a chance to provide additional funds needed in order to avoid a fare increase,” the lawmakers and advocates wrote in their letter.

“Fare increases are a last resort,” said Assemblyman Richard L. Brodsky, a Westchester Democrat. “After 12 years of neglect under the Pataki administration, we want to work with the M.T.A., the city and state governments to change the failed policies of the past.”

The letter said: “There are many strong reasons for increasing government aid to the M.T.A. There has been no permanent new state operating aid to M.T.A. New York City Transit in at least a dozen years.”

The M.T.A. was quick to respond. Their spokesman said that the plan devised by the M.T.A. depends on state funding and "cost of living" increases in fares. Now there is a problem with that automatic reply. If the state can give them all the funding they need, why put an extra burden on those that use the subway to get around? Do they just want us to get used to paying higher prices?

Elliot Sander and his M.T.A. have already begun to pull one over on New Yorkers with the reduced-fare idea. Who knows what lengths they'll go to, even if the City Comptroller, citizen advocate groups and twenty-two State Assemblymen implore them not to raise the rates.