Please forgive the erasing of comments. The Indypendent is experiencing an extraordinary amount of spam in the past couple days and our moderation is overworked. If you had comments posted that were erased, we apologize and invite you to post again.

Sorry for the confusion.

It's very sad to see that the "regressive tax" shell game has duped even honest leftists like A.K. Gupta. The argument is meaningless if you focus on one mode of transportation (driving) while ignoring the rest. Raskin's companion article debunks that issue pretty well, but here's my take on it:

http://www.grieve-smith.com/neighborhood/BrodskyShellGame.html

Similarly with the express buses. The poor benefit because some of the motorists who were driving through their neighborhoods spewing pollutants and running people over are now on the express buses. And you don't have to be very wealthy to ride them: I used to ride the BxM4A/B down the Grand Concourse with working-class and lower-middle-class, nonwhite people, most of whom were older women who just wanted a little quiet on their commute.

The civil liberties issues are important, but those of us who use Metrocards or take Amtrak or intercity buses are already being tracked. Anyone who's seriously looking at the class issues has to wonder why certain people are silent when it's train and bus users being tracked, but complain loudly when motorists are tracked.

If there's anything "harebrained" going on, it's this uninformed article. Bloomberg's congestion pricing plan is a bold initiative that thoughtful progressives are well advised to support. There is no reason to think that mass transit will not receive the money earmarked for it by the plan. That benefits poor and working class New Yorkers. It is well-documented that the average New Yorker who drives into the city is notably more affluent than the transit rider. Cleaner air, more inviting public space, and better transit are possible for us, if we are willing to get serious about casting off the tyranny of the automobile.

Someone posted on this website before it was taken down, that a befuddling exercise is to click on Gupta's byline and see all the articles he wrote about oil and the Iraq War. And now when its time to take a practical approach to doing something about oil consumption and pollution, Gupta is against it.

Here's a look at some of Gupta's past articles:

Exxon’s Slick Take on Science

Boiling the Planet: The looming climate crisis is no surprise…

Global Warming is Good for You!

Prize of the Century: Major Oil Companies Ready to Claim Iraqi Resources

Bush’s Iraq Strategy for 2007: A Second Civil War or Genocide

Undeterred, the War-for-Oil Machine Rolls Toward Iran

Big Oil Profits from Turmoil

At opposed to what Oldmark says, there's every reason to think mass transit will not receive any money. The history of NYC government is filled with lofty promises broken and twisted. Take a look at the Liberty Bond scam menat to rebuild lower Manhattan after 911. Instead, more than a billion went to Goldman Sachs, and the City and State (and NY congressional delegation) tried to use much of it for a downtown to JFK airlink meant to serve the wealthy business elite flying into the city to cut their deals.

As I pointed out, the city had a $4.4 billion surplus this year but essentially choose to defund itself by rebating a huge amount to the wealthy and then spending much of the rest in paying down debt that wasn't due for years. Meanwhile, not one penny for mass transit (or a rent rebate for that matter).

What's really disgusting is how supposed leftists are lining up behind Bloomberg's noblesse oblige. They're not even considering other proposals to implement congestion oricing as I point out. Why not base it on tailpipe emissions, which would hit those big luxury SUVs hard?

This is the same mayor who began his first term by stating that power plants were always going to be sited in poor neighborhoods. His administration has been responsible for placing more plants and bus depots in low-income areas--now he wants everyone to believe that he really wants to reduce asthma rates.

And the part about people being tracked on mass transit is idiotic. Presumably what the writer is referrring to is some sort of RFID technology that Citigroup is planning to use in its metro swipe cards. The metro cards use magnetic stripes not RFID. Thus, no one is being tracked. And even if there was, you can "foil" it, so to speak, by placing the card in a metal pouch.

But, hey, since the writer thinks we're already being tracked, well let's just have 3,000 cameras surveilling our every move, too. It's not just about drivers--these cameras will be used to track movements in public space (many already are). The difference is they would be tied into a police database with the license-plate readers proposed under Bloomberg's plan.

I want to add that because of the Assembly's stalling on congestion pricing, the MTA is considering a tax increase. I like this quote from Councilmember Liu in today's Times:

“I would never say there cannot be a fare hike, but a fare hike is tantamount to a tax increase, and it should be enacted as far into the future as possible,” Mr. Liu said.

Now that's a regressive tax! Where's Gupta's editorial against that?

Gupta raises some genuine concern. But given the benefits outlined by Raskin, you'd think the conclusion would be "let's fix all these problems before we implement congestion pricing" instead of "This is not a plan New York needs." Who's naively believing politicians?

Transit officials may consider New York subway fare hike
by karen matthews / associated press writer

NEW YORK (AP) -- Mayor Michael Bloomberg raised hackles recently when he said of subway overcrowding, "So you stand next to people. Get real, this is New York."

Straphangers who thought they deserved sympathy for being packed in like sardines could get more bad news this week if transit officials vote to consider the system's first fare increase since 2003.

A Metropolitan Transportation Authority spokesman would not comment on published reports that the authority, which runs the nation's largest mass-transit system, will start the fare hike process on Wednesday when it takes up its four-year financial plan.

If an increase is on the agenda there won't be a decision until December. But the MTA board could decide Wednesday to schedule a series of public hearings on fare hikes for New York City Transit and the two commuter lines it runs, the Metro-North Railroad and the Long Island Rail Road.

The bus and subway fare has been set at $2 since it was raised from $1.50 in 2003, but the average actual fare is about $1.30 thanks to cut-rate monthly and weekly passes.

That fare can take you anywhere the subway goes -- a bargain compared to other transit systems such as Washington, D.C.'s, which charge more for longer trips.

What the $2 fare can't buy is a seat at rush hour -- or, sometimes, room to breathe.

According to the MTA's own body count, several lines are so crowded during the morning rush that each rider has a space less than about 19 inches by 19 inches to stand on.

It was in response to a reporter's question about those numbers that Bloomberg, a billionaire who rides the subway to City Hall, made his "this is New York" retort.

Any debate on fare hikes will take place in the context of Bloomberg's push to increase transit ridership by charging cars $8 to enter the busiest parts of Manhattan during work hours.

State lawmakers who must approve the so-called congestion pricing plan have agreed to consider it, but the plan faces big hurdles before it can be enacted. New York stands to collect up to $500 million in federal funds for transit improvements if the plan is approved.

"It's as if a well-off uncle has come by and given us half a billion dollars," said Gene Russianoff, whose Straphangers Campaign released its annual state of the subways report card on Monday. (Several lines got failing grades.)

Russianoff said he would "grudgingly" accept a fare increase if it is coupled with the improvements to the system that those federal funds would buy.

With 8.6 million trips on an average weekday, New York's bus and subway system dwarfs any other transit program in the United States.

And it is more crowded. Peter Derrick, a subway historian and author of "Tunneling to the Future: The Story of the Great Subway Expansion That Saved New York," said he has ridden every transit system in the country and "there's no comparison."

But Tokyo and London are more crowded.

"Japan is the worst," Derrick said. "In Japan it's common on almost all the lines to be crushed up against another person's body during rush hour."

Idiotic, huh? Nice to see that you stoop to that level of discourse, Gupta. No, I'm not referring to any RFID technology, but simply the fact that the system records every time and place that a given Metrocard is swiped. If you buy a card with a TransitChek, credit card or debit card, if you're a student, senior citizen or disabled person, the MTA can connect you to that Metrocard. This is easier to do than anything involving cameras.

If it's disgusting for leftists to align themselves with the Manhattan business elites, it's just as disgusting for them to align themselves with outer-borough and suburban business elites, especially when it comes to prioritizing solo drivers over transit. None of the politicians are clean, and I'm getting really sick of these ad hominem arguments.

The fact is that these drivers use a disproportionate share of the roads and bridges, but the maintenance for them is paid out of income and sales taxes, meaning that non-drivers are paying to fill potholes created by drivers. Congestion pricing is a small step in getting drivers to pay their fair share.

Why not base it on tailpipe emissions? Because emissions are only part of the story. Cars damage the city not just by emissions and gas-guzzling, but by taking up valuable space and killing and injuring people. I'd like to see the formula that charges a variable fee based on all those factors. But it doesn't really matter because the anti-pricing politicans aren't seriously considering other proposals either, or else they would have sponsored a bill in the Assembly.

Gupta does seemed oblivious or blind to the actual political work of passing legislation. I guess leftists of his ilk don't play that game.

Well, I agree with Gupta. The Mayor's plan is seriously flawed and it attempts to solve the congestion and emissions problems through regressive taxes. One big blindspot is that the plan will increase congestion in the outer burrows and in upper Manhattan as commuters poor in to park. Asthma rates in Harlem and Bed-Stuy are much higher than in lower Manhattan, why not have congestion pricing there? Instead we will encourage suburbanites to park their SUVs in my neighborhood so they can hop the A train downtown.

Also note the the Transit Workers Union local 100 supports the plan but only if subway fares are reduced during the hours of restriction. Those who claim the subway fare hike is a result of the stalling of Bloomberg's plan are fools. The TA always pushes to hike rates, even when there is a surplus. If you really want to fund the expansion of public transit and keep the rates the same, then tax corporation more significantly for doing business in the city. Right now they are getting tax breaks for locating in Manhattan and some even get cash incentives fro relocating near Ground Zero. Aren't they responsible for the congestion more than the individual workers whether t make minimum wage or $100,000 per year?

Plus, no one has explained how the plan can simultaneously raise millions of dollars AND reduce congestion. If the fee is high enough to dissuade folks from driving then there will be little new cash for public transit. Conversely, if the fee is not high enough to scare off commuters, then the gridlock will persist.

Frankly, there has to be better solutions to this problem. Congestion pricing--at leaset constructed like this--ain't it.

"regressive taxes"
absurd to call this fee a regressive tax.

How many people do you actually know that drive to downtown?

When people drive they are parking in thise garages that cost how much $?

It is less than 5% of NYC residents who commute to manhattan that drive a car, mostly one person in one car.

A truckload of thousands of dollars of goods, charged $5 or $20 is not going to impact your cost as a consumer.

Finally, my concern is or was about the cameras. Infrared tech reads plates only. Not nice, but they have cameras all around now without that limitation.

Every sophistic argument deserves an ad hominen. I don't support any of these suburban or outer borough politicians. Like Bloomberg, they're cynics, too. But some respondents here are heaping praise on Bloomberg.

To then argue that I believe these politicians because I oppose BLOOMBERG's PLAN is pushing a lie.

Just like implying that opponents of Bloomberg's plan are "prioritizing solo drivers over transit."

But before this descends into any more uninteresting back and forth attacks, let's talk about what the issues are.

As a schoolchild can plainly see, I support congestion pricing--but not Bloomberg's ill-thought-out scheme. Normally, in this type of situation, leftists would demand an Environmental Impact Statement--Bloomberg had none.

This is a much better way to determine what the impact would be, particularly on the bordering neighborhoods. Congestion pricing is based on rational choice theory. The problem is, many drivers will probably make the rational choice to park in a bordering neighborhood and pay for a subway pass rather than paying the $8 fee (saving them selves about $100 a month). This applies to both drivers who rely on free parking and paid parking. The extra cost will push a certain percentage to still drive but stop at the edge of the pricing zone.

Now of course this can be dealt with issuing parking permits for people in these neighborhoods. But there was nothing in Bloomberg's plan covering this. It was proposed afterwards. And the fact that there is a commission means there is an opportunity to address this rather then the bum rush Bloomberg was trying.

It's incredible that many people can't make even the basic connection. Bloomberg's ploy is not about helping New York. He's trying to position himself for an '08 run. There is no other reason for the haste.

Many of the advocates are also ignoring the reality of 1) the city's enormous budget surplus and 2) the fact that no new subway construction is to even begin until 2022 under PlaNYC 2030. The restart of the 2nd Ave. line was in the works for years, long before congestion pricing. Most of the money for it is already being covered by other sources, mainly the feds--something like 75%, I believe.

So if Bloomberg really wanted to ease the transit crunch right away, he could have dipped into this enormous surplus. The funding gap for Phase I is $974 million--which is just 22 percent of the 2007 surplus! Even if Bloomberg got his way, it would have taken until 2009 before the city "perhaps" produced $400 million in revenue from congestion pricing. Thus, it would not even generate the revenue to pay for Phase I until 2011.

As for the fare hike, look at the situation. Bloomberg was fear-mongering about $3 fares unless the Assembly passed congestion pricing and we got the federal funds. He's claiming victory with the commission, saying we'll still get the funds, but fares are still possibly going to be raised. So he was cynically jerking people about.

Again, there is no need for the fare hike if the city would just properly fund MTA repairs and expansion.

Now, I back congestion pricing for what it should do--reduce congestion. But there are many ways to skin a cat. Charges could be also be based on vehicle size, which, again, would hit the richer harder. Or there could be odd-even days, based on license plate numbers, which would reduce traffic far more dramatically.

Let's fight for mass transit funding from the huge pot of money that is ours--the city budget. And let's fight for congestion pricing that makes the rich pay their fair share. It's sad that in these post-modern times, many leftists can't recognize how a billionaire is repackaging class warfare as progress.

AKG

A flat tax is regressive because it makes no distinction between income levels.

Bloomberg's $8 fee is also regressive because you pay the same whether you drive a $2,000 jallopy or a $200,000 jaguar. That's the meaning of regressive. Not how many people it affects, but how it affects people of different income levels.

As for the $21 for vehicles over 7,000, that includes all those delivery vans you see. If people would only do their homework--how many of you actually read all of PlaNYC 2030 or the accompaying study on traffic? For instance, they only project a 7% decrease in traffic--not the 21% that London has acheived.

I used to work for a small catering outfit. We had a delivery van that had to go into Manhattan every day. Bloomberg's proposal would have meant $5,000 a year from the company. We wouldn't have gone out of business, but we probably wouldn't have gotten our annual raise the year it went into effect. Go to the Ford and GM websites. Every single one of their cargo vans (not minivans) has a Gross Vehicle Weight of over 7,000.

Now, stand at a busy intersection. Last week I stood at the corner of 23rd St. and 5th. I counted more than 40 separate delivery vans in a five-minute period. This will hit small business, some hard, some not. I know people who are self-employed and use these types of vans for deliveries or as carpenters, electricians, handmen, etc. They will be hit really hard.

But the big cargo and commercial trucks, which are used by much larger enterprises, pay the same fee. They won't really notice the impact. So once again, those who can least afford to pay will pay the same as those who it won't affect.

Why do people accept the fact that it won't affect the rich, as if the rich should get a ride on the backs of everyone else? Let's back congestion pricing schemes that make hit the rich and big businesses. Or are we so defeated by neoliberalism we'll accept whatever crumbs our overlords throw us?

AKG

> Let’s back congestion pricing schemes that make hit the rich and big businesses.

Here here.

That is, "hear, hear."

No one's disputing that the fee is "regressive" if you look closely. I'm sure you could make a good case that a flat sales tax on yachts hits the rich harder than the super-rich. But why should we care?

Similarly, why should we care if the congestion fees take a bigger chunk of the income of the upper middle class than of the upper class? If you look at the subsidies to transportation overall, they're horribly regressive. The city sets aside large chunks of expensive real estate and costly bridges for the primary use of motorists, and pays for their upkeep with general sales, income and property taxes. Poor and lower-middle-class non-drivers pay these taxes and get very little benefit. Meanwhile, the MTA charges us to ride the subway, but the bridges and highways are "free."

As far as business goes, my city councilmember, Eric Gioia, has said that his father long ago stopped making deliveries from his flower shop to Manhattan because it was no longer worth the cost of sitting in traffic. Small businesses are already hit hard by congestion, and most of them would save a lot more than $21 a day by faster-moving traffic.

The system needs to be changed. You acknowledge that, Gupta, but instead of writing a positive article about what changes to make and how to go about achieving them, you write an attack piece about the Mayor and his supporters, and echo the misleading talking points of the privileged. If anyone's heaped praise on Bloomberg here, it was in the comments that got deleted. Very few people are wedded to the specifics of the Mayor's plan. Please cut the negative crap and write a solution that we can all get behind.

Mr. Smith, your point about small businesses potentially saving money is a good one. Other than that, however, your responses plumb the depths of stupidity.

First, how is it fair to charge a van with a 1,500-lb. cargo capacity the same price as an 18 wheeler with a cargo capacity up to 50 times that amount? There should be much bigger charges for cargo trucks and tractor trailers. After all, they spew far more greenhouse gases, damage the roads much more and are far more dangerous to pedestrians, bikers and other traffic given their size and weight. A midtown business that needs a tractor trailer for delivery can obviously afford a much bigger fee, so let's charge them more--much more.

Second, I doubt you are fooling anyone with your pathetic analogy, comparing owning a car to owning a yacht.

In New York there is a paradoxical relationship between income and car ownership. While car owners in the city do make more than non-car owners the situation is different when looking at the outer boroughs and Manhattan. Because of mass transit becomes sparser the further you move from the center, it becomes increasingly likely that those living in low to middle-income areas own a car as opposed to Manhattanites living in wealthy neighborhoods. Someone living in Red Hook, Mill's Basin or Corona is hardly rich, but it's a good chance they'll have a car. Meanwhile, barely 20 percent of Manhattanites own a car.

Also, you can see a similar phenomena in Manhattan, above 125th St. Perhaps Mr. Smith, you should visit Washington Heights or Harlem. These are mostly low-income areas where many people own cars.

Or maybe you think they just use their cars to drive to the marina to go yachting on weekends.

Your responses are compendiums of logical fallacies. But it is a useful exercise insofar as you exhibit much of the bad logic being used to support Bloomberg's bogus scheme.

You engage in the same exact fear-mongering by talking of raised subway and bus fares. Bloomberg is claiming that the deal he struck with the assembly means NY will get some of the federal funds for mass transit. Thus, if the MTA is talking about an increase it's obviously not related to congestion pricing (and more to it's own duplicity, contempt for New York city residents and ideological rigidity).

Almost every one of your other arguments is based on the fallacy that because bad things are happening, then it's okay that other bad things happen. Example, because the MTA--which is not a police, surveillance or intelligence agency--can potentially track people's comings and goings on the subway, then it's okay to allow the police to operate a network of cameras to spy on people in public spaces, record the information and create a database.

(Question to the peanut gallery: I'm curious, are there any known cases in which the NY MTA has actually tracked people using the metrocards?)

Another example, because transportation subsidies are already "horribly regressive," as you put it, then it's okay to have other horribly regressive policies put in place.

You contradict yourself, saying that congestion pricing is a small step in getting drivers to pay their "FAIR" share, then admitting it is regressive. So which is--fair or regressive?

The straw men arguments are too many to count, such as trying to link any opposition to Bloomberg's specific plan to cynical outer-borough politicians.

Then you whine about "not offering solutions." Obviously, you haven't been following the debate you're a part of. I've offered three very specific counter-proposals: charge by vehicle size, charge by tailpipe emissions or use alternating odd-even days.

As for other solutions, I mention the scandalous fact that the mayor refuses to pay for any new subway construction despite the fact that NYC is rolling in money. The Lexingont Ave. line carries something like 2.5 million people a day--this is something like 150% of all car traffic. This line is horribly overcrowded. We need a much more robust mass transit system of subways, buses, light rail, real bike lines, etc.

This is exactly what Paris is doing. They're talking about achieving a 40% cut in car traffic, not the puny 7% Bloomberg is projecting. But they realize you have to first put in robust public transport options--which they are doing. See today's New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/26/opinion/26thu4.html?em&ex=11855952...

The fact is, in 15 minutes of searching on the web, one can come up with a much fairer, more equitable system of transport that New York can afford and implement that the scam Bloomberg is trying to shove down our throats.

And I haven't even mentioned the bizarre spectacle of how while Bloomberg has spent the last 3 years attacking the best form of transport in this city--bicycling--the chief advocate of bicycling, Transportation Alternatives, has not spoken up about the mayor's hypocrisy in claiming he wants a greener city.

Now, as this new commission considers how to reduce gridlock in NYC, it's incumbent upon us to fight for real transportation alternatives, not an egomaniac's undemocratic ploy.

I want to throw one other into the mix. Why have the congestion pricing zone start at 86th Street? Doesn't that leave the Upper West side and Upper East side off the hook? And then why not include Harlem and the Heights? Why not have the whole island in the zone? Just increasing bridge and tunnel tolls and making all crossings toll roads would serve the same ends without implementing the "ring of steel" nonsense. Why not just below 50th street?

As Gupta points out, why not charge based on size or emissions impact instead of flat rate? Or just ban car travel altogether downtown?

And of course, why not tax big corporation that benefit from doing business in the city? Progressive taxation the TA could pay off their debts (service of which will be a whopping 20 percent of the budget by 2010) and avoid fare increases while addressing long-standing modernization and overcrowding issues. Then more people would take transit anyway. Using a carrot instead of a stick works.

These questions along with others lead me to think that the intentions of Bloomberg are insincere and the end results will fall short. I don't think there will be significant reduction in congestion. It is really a NIMBY scheme.

The point of all this is why the rush? Why no study or environmental impact statement? Why avoid existing democratic bodies and processes? Let's make sure there is a real study in this new commission and real hearings and public input to answer some of the questions before the thing is a done deal.

For all of A.K. Gupta's arguments AGAINST congestion pricing and personal attacks, perhaps it boils down to something much simpler. Rumor has it that Gupta lives within the congestion pricing zone (below 86 Street) and also owns a car. Could it be that Gupta is acting out of his own self-interests here? Is it that Gupta is against congestion pricing for no other reason than he doesn't want to shell out the eight bucks a day to drive to work or upstate or where ever the hell he goes? I guess Gupta will have to bike and walk a little bit more. Surely you aren't against that too?

I was going to use some choice slags for the last post, but I thought doing some investigation to find the true identity of F. Wilpon would be a better use of time.

A fake if there ever was one, who is masquerading as former Mets' owner Fred Wilpon, who does not rival Fake Steve in his notoriety, is none other than The Indypendent's own Bennett Baumer.

I would not want to draw any conclusions, but I have noticed that some Indypendent reporters think it's okay to lob falsehoods under assumed identities. (Know what I 'm saying "Double Dribble"?)

These falsehoods I speak of? Well, yes I do own a car--which I have never used once to commute to work. Bennett knows full well that I use only for occassional out-of-state trips (or to haul copies of the Indypendent around town...).

I've lived in downtown Manhattan for fifteen years and never worked more than three miles from various ad jobs in Midtown. Why would I take more time to drive to work than it takes to bike or spend $20 for parking when walking is free?

Bennett also knows that I bike or walk virtually everwhere. In fact, given that i bike about a hundred miles a week all over the city, I probably use far less energy than the subway-dependent Baumer.

But this isn't about me. This is about the scurrlilous methods the I love Bloomberg crowd will stoop to.

Why are they unwilling to consider different ideas for congestion pricing? Why aren't they talking about Bloomberg using two Suburban SUVs--"one of the worst, if not the worst" SUV--to commute to the subway or that the increasingly asinine-sounding TA thinks "it's terrific." (See http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/01/nyregion/01bloomberg.html)

Why aren't they talking about the fact that the pricing scheme is just more class warfare or that Bloomberg has spent the last three years trying to destroy critical mass--the best way to allow novice bike riders to gain comfort navigating New York streets?

Why aren't they discussing how the many billions of dollars in surplus city funds should be spent to help make the lives of the people who really make this city run easier instead of lavishing more loot upon the ill-deserving oligarchy?

OK, I know they really don't love Bloomberg... but it does seem to be the only explanation left for why alleged leftists continue to irrationally defend a scheme designed to pamper gilded elites and corporate behemoths and hit working class New Yorkers the hardest.

A.K. Gupta

Actually, I feel it is incumbent upon me to point out a major flaw in A.K Gupta's reasoning:

Fred Wilpon is not the owner of the New York Mets. He is the current owner.

If we can't believe Gupta about this, how can we believe him about anything???

Why was my last comment Deleted?

I want to know who deleted it and why.

Arun,
If your comment included any of the terms, "xxx", "good site", "nice site", "cool site", "phentermine", "xanax", "cialis", "webcam", "respect!", "ringtone", "airline" or "free video" it's more than likely I deleted it with one of the thousands of spam comments I have moderated over the past 24 hours.

If not, all I can say is that you may need to talk to who ever else has been moderating the site - it's possible someone else decided to delete it.

However, as you know, legitimate comments do occasionally get deleted accidentally, for no other reason than we get thousands of spam comments every day.

Erin

Gupta is getting a little testy. And no Gupta, I'm the real F. Wilpon - the owner of the New York Mets and the Brooklyn Bridge. You know, its okay if you effectively oppose congestion pricing because you own a car. In all honesty, I would not want to pay the $8/day from 6am-6pm just to drive across town.

Seriously, the commission set up to review congestion pricing is where the scheme's opponents could kill the plan. Gupta raises valid points about the security cameras and different ways to charge drivers. I hope the liberal Bloomberg will be able to push a plan through that is not watered down by the staid upstate crowd and could even incorporate some of Gupta's proposals.