Transit riders slapped in the face

(Image source: Machetera)

Well, I'm having my fifteen minutes of fame on the Streetsblog home page as the featured "Word on the street." Those words are: "All transit riders here have been collectively slapped in the face."

No, there hasn't been an outbreak of hand-to-face violence on New York City subway cars. Rather, our dysfunctional and corrupt state legislature has once again denied home rule to NYC on a local matter of vital importance: enforcement of car-free bus lanes.

Buses in NYC, beyond fighting traffic congestion like other automobiles, are slowed down even further by frequent stops and slow boarding: passengers can only enter through the front door and must pay for their ride on board. Starting in July, the city will begin an experiment with Bus Rapid Transit (on the Bx12 route), a system that attempts to provide the efficiences of a subway system above ground. Passengers pay at the stop before boarding and may enter and exit at all doors. Buses have dedicated lanes and priority rights-of-way at traffic signals.

A key way of ensuring cars and other vehicles don't use the bus lanes is through bus-mounted cameras that photograph the license plates of any vehicles improperly using the lane. Unfortunately, using these cameras requires approval of the NYS legislature, which on Tuesday killed the legislation in committee by a 14-11 vote, due to the opposition of state transportation committee chair David Gantt (Assembly, D-Rochester). Gantt's opposition was supposedly on civil liberties grounds, although he approved red-light camera enforcement in other counties in order to benefit a specific vendor. Gantt is a sadly typical example of the graft and corruption rampant in the NYS legislature. Here are my various comments about it on Streetsblog:

at 1:14 p.m.
I'm outraged.

Once again another livable streets initative for New York City has been stymied because of our corrupt and dysfunctional state legislature in Albany. I feel all transit riders here have been collectively slapped in the face.

New York City has been deprived of home rule on so many fronts, ranging from rent regulation to congestion pricing to bus lane enforcement. It's time for us to secede.

at 2:50 p.m.
Gantt is corrupt, corrupt, corrupt. Here's an another very recent example of his cronyism:

Bill moving driver-safety courses to Net draws fire

"A bill by Rochester Assemblyman David Gantt to move all driver-safety courses to the Internet is drawing fire from groups that run the courses, fearing that the move would increase the cost of the classes and could benefit a lobbyist close to Gantt.

"...the narrow language in the bill could...favor giving the Web-development contract to an Albany-area company, CMA Consulting Services Inc., whose lobbyist, Robert Scott Gaddy, is a former Gantt aide.

"The allegations are the second time in recent days that Gantt's close relationship with Gaddy has come under fire. Just last week, industry officials who want to install red-light cameras at intersections in Upstate New York complained that Gantt's bill on the issue is so narrowly worded that only CMA could get the work."

http://www.theithacajournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080613/NEWS01/806130360/1002/NEWS01

at 3:10 p.m.
Thank you, Mr. Gantt, for protecting my civil liberties! Oh, wait, you voted *against* legalizing same-sex marriage in New York State last year.

http://nicksnotesblog.blogspot.com/2007/06/new-york-state-assembly-passed-gay.html

New York set to recognize out-of-state gay marriages

In another victory for marriage equality, New York State Governor David Patterson has issued a directive to state agencies to recognize same-sex marriages contracted in other localities (such as Massachusetts, Canada, and Spain). The New York Times has more details. This is a huge and important step towards equal marriage in New York State.

Victory in California: Massachusetts no longer an exception

In a major victory for equal marriage, the Supreme Court of California ruled Thursday, May 16 that same-sex couples in California have a constitutional right to marry.

I find this ruling remarkable for four reasons:

1. It takes effect 30 days from the date of ruling. In the 2004 Goodridge decision, the Massachusetts state legislature was given 6 months to comply, which gave Mitt Romney and his minions plenty of time to attempt to derail it. Although there's already talk of voter initiatives to amend the California Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage, once gay couples begin receiving licenses, I think it will be much more difficult to pass said initiatives. Voters have an easier time denying a theoretical right to gay people than actually taking away their nice gay neighbors' marriage license. In Massachusetts, it was clear that once gay people started getting married and Western Civilization didn't collapse, opposition to gay marriage dwindled to a few die-hards.
   
2. California does not have a residency requirement for marriage, nor a statute like Massachusetts that forbids marrying out-of-state couples whose marriages would be considered null and void in their home state. This means that gay couples all over the nation could openly come to California and get married.
3. Massachusetts is no longer exceptional. Therefore, equal marriage now has a stronger case. Since 2006, several states (New York, Washington, Oregon, New Jersey, Connecticut) have continued to deny access to marriage to same-sex couples, preferring to institute civil unions instead.
4. The California court set a national judicial precedent in declaring sexual orientation a suspect class demanding strict scrutiny in claims of equal protection violations. This heightened level of scrutiny makes it much more likely for discriminatory laws to be struck down as a result of judicial review (because the state must demonstrate both a compelling interest is at stake and that the law is necessary--and narrowly tailored--to support that interest). Until now, sexual orientation discrimination claims have been subjected to a rational basis review, whereby a discriminatory law is upheld as long as the state can demonstrate a rational basis exists for it.

If only the New York State Court of Appeals had been this enlightened two years ago (although Judge Judith Kaye did her best).