City of yes a no-no

“If you eat an entire pie without cutting it, you technically only had one slice.”

Those insightful words were not written on a subway wall, but rather in the restroom of a particularly charming bakery in Floral Park. It tells a lot about the modus operandi of the New York City Council.

When its miniscule, loosely tied caucus of dissenting members votes against the almost invariably overwhelming majority, the practical effect is unanimity. The subject and sometimes subjected public must swallow whole the partisan sentiment codified into law. The reason there is rarely much dispute about the merits of proposed legislation is not that its virtues are all-inclusive, but rather that its ideological proclivities are so inbred, self-effacing and brook little independence.

But that doesn’t speak ill of them, because, as the saying goes, they are often “on the right side of history.” When that is the goal, compromise is often not an option.

On the issue of the “City of Yes” legislation, there is less misalignment between progressives and conservatives than usual. That’s a pity. They should reject it. Piece of cake.

The rezoning proposal called “City of Yes” is a slam dunk. Residential communities in the outer boroughs will get slammed. Neighborhoods of one- and two-family private homes will be choked by overcrowding and inundated by commercialization. They will lose their suburban character and become destabilized. 

Grounds for resistance are compelling, but the professed justification is inarguable. The critical shortfall of affordable housing is worsening, and the Government of Ostrich has buried its face in the sand for too long. But is the solution to rob Peter of quality of life to pay Paul for historic inequities or even to subsidize ineligible demanders of entitlement?

Some critics suspect that “City of Yes” is really a social engineering project and an affront to the demonized comforts of suburban ambiance. The inspiration doesn’t matter; the execution does. If it is a done deal, is the commuter belt done for?

Dual-minded elected officials and community boards are testifying at City Planning Commission hearings and other venues, but the loaded dice have been thrown.

Snake eyes.

We can endure saturation, but not flash-flooding. It will be hard to resolve the affordable housing crisis. But it will be impossible unless the avalanche of new residents is tightly controlled. Taxing warehouse properties and slowing land speculation would also help.

Home ownership is a cornerstone of the lately mistrusted “American Dream.” Neighborhoods that are not oppressively over-urbanized have been mischaracterized as bastions of cultural isolationism. Extolling relative “suburbia” is not code for celebrating an escape from diversity. Red lining is gone. All are welcome.

Single and two-family homeowners are being dive-bombed by avaricious realtors and rapacious property developers, though it can’t be said that their phones are ringing off their hooks. That’s because mobile devices don’t have any hooks.

The “City of Yes” would allow grocery stores and other businesses on street corners in residential neighborhoods as well as, according to the New York Post, “barber shops, pharmacies, ad agencies and other lines of work on the upper floors of mixed-use buildings above apartments, provided they have separate entrances.”

Dictionary definitions don’t always move with the times. What evil lurks behind the concept of “affordable”? Meanings have moving goalposts, even when the abstraction is stationery.

What does “affordable” mean, anyway?

Many economists, politicians, policymakers and free and easy bourgeois folks who profess broad-minded empathy, feel that the extent and degree of indigence is overrated in our society. They think it’s just a matter of getting their acts together and their priorities in order. Have no air-conditioning or heating, engorge yourself with cheap and stodgy bananas, expunge “vacation” from your working vocabulary, donate your vehicle and hitch rides instead, have no kids and don’t splurge on luxuries like medical care.

They call it “self-reliance.” “Affordable” is a word that belongs in an updated “Devil’s Dictionary.”

New York has a bad habit of racing the future by marking time in the present. Even if they meet their goal of a half-million apartments over the next 10 years, it will fall far short of the need.

Mayor Eric Adams is standing tall behind the “City of Yes,” but his knees are buckling on what is called “advice and consent.” But by declining to even attempt to veto the City Council’s power grab, he is cheerfully surrendering much of his executive sovereignty.

For the first time, the appointment of around 20 additional agency commissioners, including sanitation, buildings and homeless services, will be under City Council oversight. Why has the mayor so mellowed? He has always been very protective and defensive about the direct link between mayoral accountability and full authority. This is why he lobbied so lustfully for total control over schools.

Why would he abrogate and vest a large slice of his power to the Council? Such a turnaround should raise eyebrows above the scalp line.

Adams would have us believe he just doesn’t want to fight anymore. He’s above the fray. That sounds like a choreographed professional wrestling skit in which the heel is cornered, extends his hand in a gesture of rapprochement to mollify and catch his opponent off guard and then turn the tables and revert to form with a vengeance. Maybe the only thing they have in common is both are scripted. 

Voters will need to approve the “advice and consent” changes in a general election ballot referendum. Sure bet.

The balance of power among departments of government is a risky, high-stakes business, especially on the federal level. The U.S. Supreme Court has been largely invulnerable to scrutiny because it is viewed as the prodigal child of the inviolable, hallowed Constitution.

There have been calls to tamper with or fine-tune the Supreme Court to make it better comport with the spirit of its creation by adapting it to modern exigencies. Whether at least some of this is a good-faith ideal or a partisan-driven power play is open to question. Should a new code of ethics be imposed upon the nation’s highest court? Who would rule upon alleged violations and would be their bona-fides? What is the litmus test for legitimacy?

Should an inspector general be appointed to do selective deep dives into the affairs of certain Supreme Court justices? Should the numerical count of Justices be increased to diminish or advance partisan puppetry? Rigged rulings and preset biases are always in the eyes of the beholder.

The mayor, City Council, Supreme Court and sundry other parties are striving, scheming and straining to heal the world in their own way. They’re all brainstorming. More storm than brain. Not unlike the reaction to Teamsters General President Sean O’Brien’s appearance at the Republican National Convention.

The Guardian noted that this was unprecedented. The United Auto Workers president has called Donald Trump a “scab,” a tag seconded by the Teamsters National Black Caucus.

Is it arguably inarguable that there is equal merit in the labor-related positions held historically by the two parties? In truth it is beyond dispute that there is an inferior party, and it should be given neither equal billing nor equal time. But it should be heard so it can be full by its own weight. Our low expectations will be fulfilled. Excluding them would play into their hands and feed their propaganda line. They would ask what we are afraid of. We must demonstrate our knowledge that we have nothing to fear.

The labor movement is a mighty fortress. The waves of hell cannot nudge or knock it down.

We depend on the support of readers like you to help keep our publication strong and independent. Join us.