Simple answer is - before any governmental action is taken (including the funding of an action) in NY, an environmental review must be carried out so that decision-makers know of the potential negative environmental impacts that might result from their action. If a negative impact is identified, they must propose measures to limit the negative impact. The same requirement applies to the federal government, who is involved here because they manage/regulate the interstate highway system.

So, in 2019, NYers voted to move forward with congestion pricing. The environmental review is ongoing and, once that is complete, decision-makers will provide the specific policy for implementation (based on the environmental review) and set a timeline for starting congestion pricing.

I'm not opposed to having an insurance requirement that limits taxpayer liability when settlements occur. Practically, I don't think it'll play out well, because the industry will charge premiums sufficient to make a profit - which will necessarily mean we're paying more in premiums than we would in settlements.

Everyone on the liability insurance train needs to recognize that the police officers won't pay for it - taxpayers will. In almost every industry that requires malpractice insurance, the cost is paid by the employer.

AlphaStruxure, a joint venture between Schneider Electric and the Carlyle Group

It’s all about perspective

Right. I’m not disputing that MTA has the legal right to seek specific performance or financial penalties. My point is that - practically - City agencies don’t always pursue those avenues. Contractors can - and do - walk away from jobs for the city when they’re held liable for damages. In that case, the city must go through a procurement process to select a new contractor, which can be expensive and requires about a year.

As I said, having a right and enforcing them are different things. Practical realities matter.

This isn’t always the case. Having an indemnity clause and enforcing are different issues, and very complicated in the city where it takes a year+ to replace a contractor.

r/Angryupvote

Can you provide support for your assertion that the US (and, in particular, NYC) is under policed?

I see that you've somewhat narrowed the assertion by discussing in relation to crime, and I'll accept evidence of that. However, that is a flawed metric for a variety of reasons (including that reported crimes are often under or over reported to support a political outcome). I think a much better metric is number of officers per capita, and would welcome comparative data demonstrating under policing by that metric.

​

EDIT: My own quick search shows that NYC isn't under policed by a per capita metric, and actually outstrips every US city except D.C.

https://www.governing.com/archive/police-officers-per-capita-rates-employment-for-city-departments.html

I don’t disagree that owning a home should be an easier option, but a lower down payment necessarily means a riskier loan for banks and higher monthly payments for the borrower. Banks will use a higher standard for lending in that case, including use of credit score, not a lower one.

A bigger issue is that we have a shortage of housing stock. Corporate owners have no incentive to sell to renters because they have a captured customer base, and NIMBYism (in varied forms) has ensured that the shortage won’t be alleviated any time soon.

If we view housing as a human right (I know many don’t), it necessarily has to be affordable and that will create a dichotomy between landlords, who are in it for profit, and tenants.