We've changed our lifestyles. What about our politicians?

If you're not from New York, you may think this post doesn't apply to you. But please bear with me. You'll see that it applies to us all.

This week, we in New York City saw the death of Mayor Bloomberg's congestion pricing plan--which would have reduced gridlock in New York by charging certain drivers to enter the central business district--thanks to the fact the Speaker Sheldon Silver refused to bring a vote on the proposal to the floor of the New York State Assembly.

You follow me, right? It wasn't voted down by the entirety of our state level representatives, the politicians representing the totality of the people of New York. No. The will of the people was not expressed. Instead, an insider group of Democratic Assembly members, forming a de facto committee, insisted that Silver put the kabosh on the  plan by never allowing a vote.

And why? The only possible explanation must be that they were worried that if the will of the people of New York State had been expressed by a vote in the full state assembly, congestion pricing probably would have passed.

After all, the plan had the support of Mayor Bloomberg, the New York City Council, Governor Paterson, State Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno, State Assembly Minority Leader Jim Tedisco, the 42 Republican members of the State Assembly, a large coalition of environmental and business groups, 67% of of the voters of New York, and a number, as yet unknown, of Democratic State Assembly members.

Meanwhile, the plan would have brought: $354 million in federal funding for improved public transportation as well an annual $500 million raised by the plan; reduced greenhouse gas emissions and more breathable air to a population that suffers record asthma levels and the second worse air quality of any city in the country; an 11% reduction in traffic congestion; 20-40% reduction in time lost in traffic; and a major dent in the loss of business revenue caused by the loss of this time.

So why wouldn't Speaker Silver allow the coalition of Democrats and Republicans who may well have formed a majority in the State Assembly to exercise the will of the people of New York State and vote the congestion plan through? According to the New York Observer, it is because the Assembly Democrats would have fired him.

So the question becomes, why were so many powerful Democrats in the State Assembly so set against congestion pricing when it had popular support and would have done so much good for the citizens of New York City? This is where we turn to how Sheldon Silver's shenanigans are of so much concern to all of us, not just New Yorkers.

Let me take a step back, now, and look at climate change politics on the Federal level. Scientists have been warning policy makers about greenhouse gas accumulation for many years. According to a recent poll, 7 out of ten Americans want the Federal Government to take more action on climate change and half of Americans want much more action. (And at the local level, Speaker Silver please take note, three in four Americans want their own cities or local governments to do something about climate change.)

So what's the hold up? Campaign contributions, I fear. The do-something-about-global-warming dollars just aren't pouring in. On the other hand, big gas and oil contributions are.

According to an MSN Money Central article on campaign finance during the 2006 election cycle, gas and oil made $14 million in contributions, not including money given to "independent" 527 groups. According to the MSN article (and bearing in mind it was written before the 2006 election):

The oil and gas industry also gives heavily to Texas Rep. Joe Barton, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee; to Sens. James Talent of Missouri, Conrad Burns of Montana and George Allen of Virginia, all of whom sit on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee; to Illinois' Dennis Hastert, speaker of the House, who plays a huge role in deciding what legislation moves to the floor for a vote and what doesn't; and to Pennsylvania's Rick Santorum, head of the Senate Republican Conference and announced candidate for Republican whip in 2006 if he wins re-election.

My point? Money, sadly, may do more of the talking than voting, and not just at the Federal level. Which brings me back to New York City and congestion pricing.

It turns out that in the aftermath of 9/11, when New York banned  single-occupancy vehicles from crossing into Manhattan through the tunnels during the morning rush hour, New York City's 2,000 or so parking garages noticed a huge drop off in business. The fewer people driving into Manhattan, the less money they make.

And since the whole point of congestion pricing is to reduce the number of people driving into Manhattan, you can guess where New York's parking lot owners stand. Their solution to the potential dilemma? We're back to the Big Oil scenario. And you can see for yourself by searching the term "parking" in the campaign contribution database of the New York State Board of Elections.

In 2007, the same year that Mayor Bloomberg introduced his congestion pricing proposal, Knickerbocker Parking gave $20,000 to the Democratic Assembly Campaign Committee and $25,000 to the New York State Democratic Committee.

This is to say nothing of the other $40,000 or so in contributions to individual candidates by other organizations that come up when you search "parking." And it says nothing of the parking-related contributions that this search doesn't bring to the fore (for example, searching for Sheldon Mallah, who is a NYC parking magnate, brings up another $10,000 or so).

And so we're back to the question: why did the powerful Democrats in the State Assembly want so badly for congestion pricing to fail that they couldn't allow a free vote? Did the Democrats destroy congestion pricing for the parking garages' 40 pieces of silver? Or were they representing the wills of their constituents? We can't look at Assembly members' voting records to see, because Sheldon Silver never brought it to a vote. We'll never know. It's all a secret.

Behind closed doors, those sons of guns killed a piece of inspired vision. Congestion pricing may have it's flaws, but it would have made a worthy attempt at addressing a lot of New York City's problems. Silver and his crew owed it to us all to let us know where they stood and to be transparent enough to let us know whether their opinions were formed by their voters or they contributors.

The people of the United State, the people of New York City, the people of New York State and the people of the world all want to do what will help preserve planetary habit we depend on for our happiness, health and well-being. The source of politicians' campaign contributions must not stand in the way of that.

But corporate interests are perverting our democratic process. I'm not an experienced activist and I can't claim I know exactly what to do (though, I know, for example, that 1Sky could sure use our help). But I do see that the time for those of us who care enough to change our lifestyles to work at changing our politicians--or at least changing their minds. The way will become clear.

Individual lifestyle change, using fewer resources is hugely important but we still need more if we want to save the planet. We need political action, too. We have to reengage in our democracy so that no politician would dare to do what Sheldon Silver did in New York State or anywhere else again. So where do we go from here?

Photo courtesy of the New York Times. By the way, that's me, farthest to the left with the sunglasses, and the famous bike genius George Bliss, who designed and built our rickshaws, dead center with the sign that says "Sick of traffic."

Comments

[Hendrik]

I'm very disappointed to see that another great action was stopped by corrupt politicians. I hope New Yorkers take action themselves and try by any means possible to bring this legislation to pass, to set an example for the US and the rest of the world. Good luck!

However, sadly its not the only time great ideas get stopped by politicians, even in Germany, an otherwise very green country and leading in many environmental aspects, important industries - steel and coal, for example - will be excluded from needing to buy certificates for the CO2 emissions they emit, said by no other than Chancellor Merkel. Reason: They're important to the national economy. Thus instead to motivate these industries to innovate and develop cleaner technology, we just let them blow CO2 into the atmosphere, for free. Money rules the world, and to say it in the words of Metallica: "Sad but true"

[Andy]

"Individual lifestyle change, making less trash, using fewer resources is a great beginning but it is not enough if we want to save the planet."

That's a pretty negative statement. Do you think it is really so measly? I'm curious why you spent an entire year devoted to so many of these small changes if you think the benefit is low. The thing is, if everyone did this, then the problem gets the solutions it needs. We can't sit around and wait for government to change when it's so obvious that the corporations have the voice in what federal politicians do. Sure we can urge the local ones to make changes to improve their region, and sure we can ask all of them to become leaders on these issues, but there's been action for that for decades and it hasn't seemed to affect much. I too, think that major change could come from new laws and taxes, but I don't think that trumps personal action.

What if congestion pricing did decrease 11% of the traffic? I wonder how else $350 million could change peoples' habits too. How about putting that money towards shutting down entire roads and making them biker and walker friendly? Putting money towards reducing traffic is still supporting an unsustainable practice, whereas building our non-car infrastructure would be a much better option.

[becky]

this is such sad and disappointing news. it seems ironic to me that we are willing to spend trillions to "bring democracy to iraq" when it is increasingly obvious we are losing our democracy here. colin, when you find the way ("the way will become clear")to make these deaf politicians hear us and then act to represent us by voting according to our will which we repeatedly vocalize on so many issues with regard to our dreams of health, happiness and well being for ourselves and our planet, please, post the answer! i don't know where we go from here but the question haunts me.

[Colin Beavan aka No Impact Man]

@Andy--
You're right. That phrasing was just the result of writing a long post that took me into the very late hours. I've changed it in the post to reflect my true feelings. But the fact is that we need both lifestyle change AND political action for exactly the reason you say--we don't have time.
All the best,
Colin aka No Impact Man

[Rob]

Something you may be interested in is Larry Lessig's Change Congress movement (http://change-congress.org/). It deals explicitly with this type of corrupting of the people's will by money. Their goal is to get a groundswell of people pushing candidates to sign on to these four goals:

1. Not accept contributions from registered lobbyists or PACs.
2. Support the abolition of "earmarks."
3. Support reform to increase transparency in Congress.
4. Support public financing of public elections.

This will not be the solution to all our ills, but a step towards ensuring that the will of the people gets heard in our lawmaking process.

[Life Less Plastic]

Nothing like a dose of reality first thing in the morning. This makes me so sad, Colin!

Still, it's inspired me to write some letters to my representatives. Perhaps I shall declare the month of May my own personal letter writing month.

The things I want to write about:
-Politicians need to respect the will of the people
-Sustainability and global warming, of course
-Subsidies and the fact that they need to be taken away from mining and industrial farming and go towards sustainable industries like organic/local farming, recycling, and clean energy.

I guess this means I won't be getting outside to enjoy the spring weather this May ;)

[Sharon]

Colin, I think you write better when you are mad than at any other time ;-).

Seriously, I was wondering if you were going to write about the death of congestion pricing, and you did, quite eloquently. Like you, I think this is appalling.

But I also think it is a brilliant illustration of the limitations of political action in isolation from individual action. The truth is that politics is like this - getting the good stuff done often doesn't work. Sometimes it does, too, but one can pour life energy into a process that ultimately fails.

And why did it fail? Well, in large part because of the money stream - because the parking lot owners of New York have enough money to donate to politicians who then perpetuate the same system.

Now what's useful to know is that there are ways to cut off the money stream to the parking lot owners - either by developing a comparable money stream, or even by cutting into their profits by staging "don't drive" campaigns - in which instead of charging people to do the wrong thing, we appeal to their sensibilities. It is more difficult than charging them - but it also can be done outside the mainstream political system.

Just a thought,

Sharon

[Leslie]

If you want to save your planet then your main concern should be getting all levels of government to put the people's interests before campaign contributors'.

Our governments are making a mockery of democracy.

Regarding government efforts vs. individual efforts. Remember taxes? We pay the taxes. The government is supposed to spend the money to benefit all of us, not just their campaign contributors. If the majority of Americans want something done about global warming, why aren't we seeing major action from our state and federal governments?

Instead, we see government actions that limit our choices and encourage consumption.

Voting is important but it is going to take grass roots activism to make our democracy work again.

[Matt M]

I respectfully disagree your views on how law can positively affect a situation, but I am total agreement with the lack of public interest in how our government runs today. Our founding father's would prescribe taking up arms and taking back the government by force as they did over much smaller taxes.

Please don't forget that this is a republic, not a democracy.

[dms]

Great post, I've provided a link to Dem. Silver's email on my blog http://nygeog.blogspot.com or if you don't feel like going through my blog try here: http://assembly.state.ny.us/mem/?ad=064&sh=con-

I've emailed him and encourage many folks to let him know that we are not happy he dropped the ball with congestion pricing.

[EminemsRevenge]

Blooberg's plan had some SERIOUS FLAWS---besides being a racist ploy to fund a private train line for Upper East Side bluebloods, it would cripple delivery people, messengers, and taxi drivers. IF he had allowed an exemption for commercial people it MIGHT have stood a chance, but with the MTA constantly raising prices while decreasing services, everyone knows that what Bloomie was proposing was just some more Californication of NYC!!!

[Diane Gandee Sorbi]

Shame on people who put money ahead of the public good! This is disappointing news. If congestion pricing had passed, it may have inspired other cities to follow. Until recent years, I wasn't very politically involved, aside from voting. I have come to realize the importance of staying on top of the issues and keeping an eye on the powers-that-be. Even with the best individual actions, things won't change fast enough without political activism.

[Jessica]

I can't believe that this comes as much of a surprise to anyone. After five years in the Army, though, I guess I might be a little jaded. I just can't bring myself to vote for people who don't support my ideals anymore. The Democrats have lost a voter in me, and they should feel sad about it, because the minute I learned the difference between Democrats and Republicans way back in the second grade, I knew then which one was more like me. When they lose a voter they've had since she was 8 years old, I think they need to realize they have a problem.
Not that I'll be voting Republican either. I just can't see a difference between the two parties anymore, except the Democrats aren't shoving religion down my throat, so if I had to vote for one or the other, I guess I'd still pick them. Except, I don't have to vote for one or the other, and I think Americans need to realize that.
I think that a Halloween episode of the Simpsons once summed up the political situation in this country perfectly. The two aliens, Kang and ... is it Tang? The names aren't important, anyhow ... they took on the form of president Clinton and Bob Dole during the election in an attempt to gain control of earth in an orderly manner. When their plot was uncovered by Homer, the aliens just laughed and said "What are you going to do? Its a two party system, you have to vote for one of us!"
A voice in the crowd cried out "Well I believe I'll vote for a third party!"
And the aliens responded, "Go ahead, throw your vote away!"
The Democrats and Republicans are constantly giving us that message. It doesn't matter what you do, because you're going to end up with one of us. If you try to change matters, you're just throwing your vote away.
If you don't like what a certain politician is doing or standing for, don't vote for them! There are a lot of other options. I did a lot of research this year on alternative parties, there are dozesns of them. After thouroughly researching the two I narrowed it down to, the Libertarians and the Green Party, I went with the Green Party, but had I been so inclined, I could have registered for the Marijuana Party, and if they were too strait laced for me, I could have opted for the Pot Party. I could have registered as a Socialist Democratic Nazi, if you can imagine such a thing. I could have registered in the party that nominated Dr. Spock to run for president back in the 70's.
The Republicans and the Democrats are not our only choices, and I'm sure they'd be terrified if everyone out there knew that. I actually don't think there are very many people who would still vote for them. I also don't think that the electoral college would last very long, because I don't think any one party would get 50% of the vote. I think we'd be running our country with multiple parties in power in the same positions, which would result in far better representation of the people.
In order to put the government back in its place, that is, subserviant to the people, we need to stop voting for people who don't represent our needs and views. Thats all there is to it.

[Kristina]

Which provides one more very strong reason why there should be no political contributions. All campaigns should be funded equally by the tax payers. This would mean that all candidates would get the same amount of money and the big business interests such as oil and factory farming would have no more influence than the individual voter. It would make campaigns less costly and more fair and it would make elected officials beholden to the voters who put them in office, rather than the money that paid for their votes.

[Leslie]

Maybe we should only vote for people who have worked for campaign finance reform. Or for those who make reform a part of their platform.

Bribes suck!

They take our taxes and give them to special interests who give them back in the form of campaign contributions. Basically, our representatives are stealing tax money.

[arduous]

The problem is that political contributions are a first amendment issue. Limiting political contributions won't really solve much I fear because even if a candidate doesn't accept PAC money, you can't prevent a PAC from gathering money, and making their own commercials. That's their first amendment right. For example, the Swift Boat ad that devastated the Kerry campaign was done by an independent PAC and not by the Bush campaign. I would love to be proved wrong, but I think PACs are ultimately a red herring.

As for public funding, it's a nice idea, but unless it's mandatory, I don't think anyone will agree to it. Already, Obama is hemming and hawing about the general campaign. Why? Because he's way ahead in fundraising. He doesn't want to give up his edge!

Secondly, given the cost of a political campaign these days, public funding would be wildly expensive, and I'm not sure it should be a priority for tax payer money. If we didn't have public funding, we'd have to accept that the candidates would not be able to meet as many voters. Is that what we want?

Thirdly, ultimately, what public funding would do would be to eliminate the little guy. (In my opinion.) The coal lobby is still wealthy enough that they can make endorsements, they can have full time staff to lobby candidates, and they can put together their own commercials and air them. Sure it won't be as EASY as just donating to a candidate, but they have the money and time on their side.

OTOH, individuals, like me, who don't have a lot of money would suddenly be unable to make a couple hundred dollar donation here and there to a political campaign.

Ultimately, I think the best thing we can do is to continue to raise awareness, and continue to fight. If half of the denizens of NY City wrote in, if 100,000 people marched on Albany, do you think they could just keep ignoring the will of the people? No.

[Western Family]

A long post by you, Colin, of which we read every word, and it will sadly not be viewed by enough people. And even sadder still, most people who read it will feel helpless when faced with this kind of monetary road block.

The only thing we feel compelled to act on would not involve facing our elected officials, but going face to face with the general public. Our community college is having it's version of Earth Day next week; maybe we'll just stand there with one of our rescue dogs and hand out some home made flyers about this blog.

Sound OK to you, Colin? We don't want to infringe on any copyrights. Do you have NIM trademarked? Can we use your smiling likeness and web address in a tasteful flyer or would you prefer to send us something you already have that has your 100% approval? We want to help, but we want to do things right by you.

The other thing we could do is post an eye catching flyer on all the public announcement boards on campuses all over Northern California. Our teens are learning to drive and use public transportation, so we're going to spend some bucks anyway. More importantly, it's time to teach them about what works and doesn't work regarding all aspects of "public policy" living in this diverse state of ours.

[terry]

While I think we do need some kind of solution to the congestion I'm not sure the plan as it stood was the answer. I live in a borough that would have become congested with people parking their cars.Manhattan's situation might improve but what about the rest of us.It seems as if the "cloud" would simply be hovering eleswhere. I also think that the issue is not dead . The next step is to address the concerns people have. There is a elitest aura about it. The poor and working class areas of the city will be stuck with traffic and it's pollution.Unless of course theres a clear plan.We need to have a plan thats really inclusive and then you'll have the weight of the ALL the people behind the plan

[Anne]

You're right that this isn't just an NYC issue. Out here in Colorado, we're starting to talk about a congestion-pricing plan for the major route from Denver to the ski areas of Summit County. Although it's an hour an a half interstate drive, many regular skiers consider it "nothing" and drive SUVs year round so they "can make it up to the mountains" in the winter... even if that's for just 4 trips. It is the congestion that's started to get people to think about solutions... a rail/light rail plan is in the ether, perhaps funded by a congestion toll.

We paid attention to the NYC congestion pricing because of the simple argument that 1.) if any place needs it, it's Lower Manhattan and 2.) if any place can make it fly in the US, it's NYC.

The defeat of this plan sets the rest of the nation back in it's effort to get people out of their cars. That it was a stuffed by a Democratic-majority statehouse is a tragedy.

[Katy]

Did you mean to write Sidney Sheldon instead of Sheldon Silver in your post? It would be funny if the whole thing weren't so sad.

[Richard Miller]

I cannot be sad that another attempt by liberals to control our lives and redistribute our wealth has been shut down.

Good job Silver!

[zach @ pennywise]

perhaps we should, instead of trying to fight the larger enemy of campaign finance reform, we should try and outmatch the oil companies for funds.

Or perhaps we should all read Thomas Paine's "Age of Reason"?

As much of that applies today, under our broken system of government as seemed to apply back in the day.

[Leslie]

A perspective different from the hackneyed "attempt by liberals to control our lives" would be the perspective of having people pay for the true cost of their activities. If activities are causing damage or harm to others, the value taken from those people should be paid for.

It's time to own up to the indirect consequences of our actions.

[Kirsten]

Thanks for the great post. I think it is important to focus on making both personal changes and to take action politically. I had been very cynical about it and frustrated because I didn't know where to start making changes politically - I felt like writing letters to my representatives only does so much. But I was lucky to find the Interdependence Project (a non-profit organization on the Lower East Side of NYC - this is their website: http://www.theidproject.com) who has been trying to figure out the same kind of things - This past saturday they held a workshop on "How Government Works -
A Workshop for Activists and Meditators". It was a lesson on how legislation gets introduce and (not) passed in New York City and New York State. I really had no idea how big the differences were in how the system worked on the city level vs. the state (and State Assembly vs. State Senate). Sen. Eric Schneiderman was at the workshop and has a great document called "Albany 101" that was really informative (it can be found here: http://www.schneiderman.org/pdfs/Eirc_Schneiderman-Albany101.pdf)
In my opinion, we (or I) need to keep learning how the system works, know how to really get our voices heard, and not let these kind of setbacks keep us from moving forward and getting the changes that we want enacted. Being cynical is just not working for me anymore.

[Kent Ragen]

Thank you for exposing this corrupt political behavior. To some extent it's inevitable, but it still needs to be brought to light...there will be accountability somewhere down the line. I think working for change at a personal level and corporate level will pay dividends in the near-term. Companies cannot afford to ignore the will of the people.
Kent
www.ecounit.com