Reihan explains why New York City secessionism is the only way forward in the wake of congestion pricing's defeat.
« The Paralysis Strategy | Main | Posts About the Book Will Continue Until Every American Owns a Copy »
Cities' Rights!
10 Apr 2008 12:35 pm
Comments (24)
It's not so clear to me that it would pass even if NYC seceded from the state. The opposition in the Assembly was as much from Outer Borough Democrats as anyone else (in fact, Republicans in the State government - who are not generally elected from NYC - generally supported the plan). Yes, the City Council approved the plan. But the City Council is the Mayor's lackey, so may not be a good indicator of what a more independent NYC-only state government would do.
Well, we have the same situation here in Northern Virginia regarding our do-nothing house of delegates and senate in Richmond. They take all of our tax money and send us back nickels on the dollar, and then tell us we don't have the right to raise taxes in our counties to fix our own roads and infrastructure. I'm all for Northern Virginia secession.
But will the robots allow it?!
Oh, wait. Wrong thread.
If NYC seceded, it'd still have to keep Sheldon Silver whose district is in... wait for it... Manhattan. He may be "treacherous" and a "blowhard", but he's no suburbanite.
It would also take Congressional approval and a Presidential signing, which is true for all the states - except one, which is allowed to divide into up to five states on its own (which I wish it would).
This idea of New York for the New Yorkers is great.
Let's apply this idea to solid waste disposal. Rather than shipping its waste to other localities, New York can dispose of it on its own - and within its own boundaries.
I propose turning Central Park into a landfill. After that is exhausted, New York can begin to fill in its harbor.
Which state is that? Article IV doesn't make any exceptions.
tying some prior days' threads together -- maybe Manhattan can secede from the rest of the "united boroughs". They can signal this by firing cannons on, say, Staten Island (insignificant but symbolic). State the cause as "borough's rights" unleash "THE" borough from the tyranny of the backward, unthinking, and ungenerous (even that!) outer boroughs.
You think New Jersey would want it? New York, New Jersey has a certain ring to it ... if nothing else, I await the inevitable Reconstruction and all the really good whistle-able tunes that will be inspired by the effort. And the Flags, O' the flags... that will fly over the mayor of Manhattan's mansion for centuries to come!!
Texas became a state after being an independent country; its statehood was handled as a treaty between two sovereign nations. One section included giving it the right to subdivide into up to five states on its own (which had it done so before the Civil War would of course have totally changed the balance of power in the Senate, assuming the majority of the new states would have been pro-South).
I'm all for it. NYC should leave NY state, Northern Virginia should leave Virginia - we can put the border at the Occoquan River - and so forth. The more, the merrier.
That's a great idea to draw the border at the Occoquan. That way we can leave the Nativist yahoos in Prince William County with the rest of the redneck state.
NY can't be subdivided into two states without the consent of the state legislature--see Art. IV, Sec. 3. Since the whole problem triggering this call for secession is that NYC can't get a bill through the state legislature, an attempt at secession doesn't seem to be much of a practical answer.
props to reihan for knowing that mailer came up with the idea 40 years ago: it's unlike young conservatives to know that kind of detail about norman mailer....
Since the whole problem triggering this call for secession is that NYC can't get a bill through the state legislature, an attempt at secession doesn't seem to be much of a practical answer.
But did the confedracy wait for the US Congress to approve its secession
rea, the problem is thinking too small. Art. IV, Sec. 3 is not as big a deal if New Yorkers fulfill the dream of the great Fernando Wood and seceede from the Union. What is this Constitution of Yours? The people of the Gotham Republic scoff at such notions. (OK, Wood wanted to call it Tri-Insula, but that's just dumb.)
Salam's column could not be a clearer explanation of why congestion pricing failed. He arrogantly sneers at Assemblyman Diaz for saying, correctly, that the voters and fare-payers could not expect a credible commitment from Bloomberg or the MTA that the proceeds would improve transit. We're just supposed to trust that Bloomberg's a "dedicated public servant," so of course all the money will be wisely spent on capital improvements.
Bloomberg has no control over the MTA. BLOOMBERG HAS NO CONTROL OVER THE MTA. The MTA is an unaccountable agency, and in this case it clearly suffered the downside of its insulation from the voters. The voters can't trust it, and they're right not to.
"I'm all for Northern Virginia secession."
Sorry, but that can't happen. There's already a West Virginia, and it's farther north than North Virginia would be. The mental anguish it would cause future fourth graders alone precludes any possibility that it would be allowed.
Shelly Silver should lose his seat during the next election anyway.
Thanks to marshall and Al for getting it. It would be nice if it was the redneck hicks from upstate who blocked Bloomberg's plan, but it wasn't.
If nyc did succeed (and please do - though you'll have to come up with a new name) the chances of Bloomberg's plan passing would probably get worse.
As David B points out, Reihan isn't clear whether he means secede from New York State but stay a part of the United States (presumably as a new state, rather than as part of, say, New Jersey), or whether he means secede from the United States altogether.
Of course, if he meant secede from the US altogether, it is highly unlikely the US Congress would appropriate $300 million for the infrastructure improvements...
As Marshall and others note, would that Diaz were really the problem. Certainly he provides political cover for false populism, but the blame for the plan's failure really lies at the foot of the MTA and Bloomberg. Bloomberg deeply miscalculated when he attempted to leverage federal application deadlines into political action, and then compounded that appearance of being rushed by never coming up with an articulate response to the complaints (some of which were *not* just demagoguery) of Silver, Diaz, and other. They only resolved how the congestion charge would be levied against NJT and the Lincoln/Hudson in the last days of the proposal's time before City Council, and we're supposed to trust its well-thought out consequences? Please.
I support congestion pricing in the general case, but Bloomberg did terribly with this proposal.
Art. IV, Sec. 3 is not as big a deal if New Yorkers fulfill the dream of the great Fernando Wood and seceede from the Union.
I'm sorry, that's not allowed.
One nation indivisible with liberty & justice for all, & c.
The last I heard, the NYPD is not commanded by Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson, and even that wasn't enough, last time.
I think they floated that idea in about 1863 or so.
Comments closed April 24, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Congestion pricing in Norway? Surely he meant eastern Montana. Or maybe Norwegian congestion pricing refers to cold medicines.
Posted by Jeffrey Davis | April 10, 2008 12:52 PM