Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
BLOOMBERG AND THE FAILURE OF CONGESTION PRICING. I've long thought of New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg as his predecessor's doppelganger. While Rudy Giuliani notoriously politicized policy-making by appointing cronies and polarized the city with his vindictive attitude, Bloomberg has appointed capable civil servants and pushed mostly technocratic, if sometimes ill-conceived, plans.
But Bloomberg shares Giuliani's megalomaniacal streak. (I mean who titles their autobiography Bloomberg on Bloomberg?) This suggests that Bloomberg, like Giuliani, lacks the political skills to be effective in any executive position where the legislature is more powerful than New York's nearly symbolic city council.
Case in point: Bloomberg failed to marshal support in the New York State Senate to pass his congestion pricing plan. And The New York Times reports that his high-handed attitude in meeting with legislators only decreased the chances of it passing:
In a tense meeting on Monday, testy exchanges erupted between the mayor and the Democratic state senators he was trying to win over. At one point, according to several people present, Mr. Bloomberg told the senators that his administration had sent plenty of information about his plan in the mail, and that it was not his fault if they had not read it.“If the mayor came in with one vote, he left with none,” said Senator Kevin S. Parker, a Brooklyn Democrat.
“His posture was not ingratiating,” he said. “He says he doesn’t know politics, and he certainly bore that out by the way he behaved.”
It's too bad that Bloomberg let his ego get in the way of passing his sensible proposal.
--Ben Adler
COMMENTS (6)
Wrong conclusion.
Maybe Bloomberg is an autocrat. But, shouldn't a state legislator be expected to look past a proponent's personality to the substance of the proposal? It is unreasonable to expect that state senators might be properly prepared for a discussion and decision of such enormous impact (there was $500 million in federal funding at stake)?
I sense this is spin, though. Blaming Bloomberg for state inaction.
In the end, it was a missed opportunity of epic proportion. And, the only people to blame are those that failed to get on board.
Not Bloomberg.
Posted by: Sean | July 17, 2007 5:17 PM
First, the proposal was a long shot to begin with - Shelly Silver was not on board, and without Silver, the chance of getting it through the legislature was dim.
Second, everybody nknows NY state has some of the least effective governance around; everybody hates the state senators and the legislators (look at how Spitzer's not winning points fighting Bruno). Bloomberg failing with that crowd is badge of honor (and ps, they hated Rudy, too). Upstate legislators want to punish NYC for taking all their money and leaving them jobless. And, well, they're not wrong.
Finally, speaking of badge of honor, I'd say failure in this case may be the best thing for Bloomberg's Presidential chances - he's got a green rep without the messy business of having actual commuters inconvenienced by anything at all. And he seems tough and uncompromising with weak willed legislators. Seems like it's win-win for his prospects.
Posted by: weboy | July 17, 2007 7:36 PM
Just for piling on's sake: Yeah, Bloomberg's an egomaniac. Tell me again about all those non-egomaniacs who were mayor of New York? And all those non-egomaniacs who are billionaire entrepreneurs in financial services?
Posted by: Doug | July 18, 2007 4:05 AM
Bloomberg had the same problem when he was pushing his Upper West Side stadium idea. And while I support the idea of congestion-pricing, this plan did seem a little ill-conceived and not really thought out, just like his stadium plan.
Posted by: David | July 18, 2007 10:21 AM
If the State Senators fight against this proposal, they have to take responsibility for that. You can't say "I was in favor of it, but Bloomberg was a jerk, so it's his fault."
Posted by: McG | July 18, 2007 10:23 AM
My impression of this plan was not that it was environment friendly or anything else but that it was just the next step in progressively shutting down Manhattan to any but his millionaire cronies.
Really? You think it's a great idea to photograph lisence plates like Big Brother and charge a minimum $8 just to drive in the city?
Posted by: Anonymous | July 18, 2007 10:40 AM