On Monday at noon, George Pataki will finally, blessedly, get out of the way. This state can then at long last breathe a sigh of relief and get back to actual governance.

He is not, however, going away entirely, caught up as he is in the desire to cast wider the nets of his failure by running for President. On the one hand, that's a remarkable leap of faith on his part; on the other, one has to be strangely fascinated by the fact that he believes in himself so strongly that this quest of his hasn't been aborted by the incredulous derision it inspires.

George Pataki leaves behind a state that neither loves nor hates him. If he inspires any reaction, arguably, it's boredom, the kind you get from an uncle whom you like at some level, but who can't stop yapping about golf. Your relief when this uncle finally leaves your Thanksgiving dinner is precisely what New Yorkers are feeling as the Pataki era draws to a close. Pataki is Calvin Coolidge, without the excitement.

Pataki's legacy is, in fairness, mixed. He preserved more open space than any of his predecessors. He championed the cleanup of the Hudson. Until he started running for President, he supported gay rights and a woman's right to choose. He also cut taxes, especially in his first term, and took some steps to shrink state government, notably the sale of the World Trade Center in 2001. He even managed to deliver an on-time budget two years in a row. By the low standards set by contemporary republicans, he was not as bad as he could have been, which, I suppose, translates into a gentleman's C, politically speaking.  read more »

I've been invited to pose questions at an event being put on by DMI on Monday, at the ungodly hour of 8:00 to 10:30 AM at the Harvard Club. The event headline is very timely: "Increasing accountability for economic development subsidies".

On September 18, 2006 the Drum Major Institute for Public Policy will host the latest installment of its 'Marketplace of Ideas' series featuring Senator John Hottinger of Minnesota.

Senator Hottinger sponsored Minnesota’s groundbreaking law instituting new standards of transparency and accountability for state and local economic development subsidies. The 1995 law and its subsequent enhancements required that companies who receive public subsidies but fail to reach job creation goals repay the subsidy with interest. The legislation also mandated increased corporate disclosure, wage standards for the jobs created, and public hearings before large subsidies could be granted. The law is credited with recouping millions of dollars in state funds and increasing civic engagement around issues of economic development.

I call this event timely for several reasons. Most importantly, this state will have a Democratic governor come January, one who is running on the slogan "On Day One, everything changes". If we're lucky, or more to the point, if we work very hard, Eliot will also have a Democratic majority in both houses of the legislature, clearing the way for the much-needed, oft-deferred reform of the state government. In short, the macro environment of governance in this state is about to change drastically.  read more »

If we do, here's a fantastic reminder created by National Geographic and made available to the public through www.video.google.com :

I agree with the National Trust for Historic Preservation : Don't build anything until all details for preservation are sorted out.  read more »

Herewith are the paraphraghs that boggled my mind.

[via Donations Slow for Memorial at Ground Zero - New York Times]:

The foundation is preparing an ambitious worldwide marketing campaign to raise the remaining $197.7 million to cover the costs, at a time when many groups are continuing to solicit donations to aid victims of the Asian tsunami, two Gulf Coast hurricanes, the Pakistani earthquake, the Philippine mudslide and other disasters far more recent than the 2001 terrorist attacks.

"I would say this is a challenging goal, because the foundation can't now rely on the shock value of the original tragedy," said Leo P. Arnoult, a fund-raising consultant not connected with the memorial. "But given the magnitude of the event, perhaps the fund-raising could be presented as something very affirming."

First, what does it say of our government that it won't pony-up the money for a memorial?

Second, what does it say of NGOs or non-profit organizations that, and I quote, "rely on the shock value of the original tragedy" to justify their existence? And let me add to that, rely on the marketing of a tragedy to pay the bills?

The US government should have covered the cost of the memorial and then have a foundation manage it. What does it say about the Bush administration that they could care less about what goes on at Ground Zero?

That they knew it was a necessary loss to further their dreams of Empire? That 2K Americans are dispensable in the quest of untold riches in the Middle East? That a hole in the ground in New York City is a little loss --good thing we don't have something like the war that has destroyed Iraq? Or that, what's the rush since more calamities will be coming our way anyhow?

Mr. President, what does your administration's silence over the fate of Ground Zero really, truly mean?

Remember how Bush's EPA lied about the toxicity of the WTC smoke? Well, a judge has declared that they can't duck responsibility just yet.