Suburban Dems In A Bind Over MTA Funding Deal
Johnson, Foley on rails as debate over capital plan looms
Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:04:00
Stuck in a precarious political position, Craig Johnson and Brian Foley have been reluctant to take a position on the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s proposed five-year capital plan.
The two suburban senators are caught between Republicans who are eager to attack, city Democrats who want the plan fully funded and a governor who seems to have lost control over his own agencies. And the politically charged debate over the MTA plan, which includes roughly $28 billion for landmark projects such as the Second Avenue Subway, may end up in a legal quagmire, too.
The proposal has a funding gap of as much as $10 billion, which only the State Legislature could fill. Some members, mostly from New York City, want the Senate to find the money.
But others, especially those from Nassau and Suffolk, are reluctant to sign off on a new funding stream for the agency after being barraged with criticism over the widely unpopular regional payroll tax, which the Legislature approved as part of an MTA bailout earlier this year.
“I am uncomfortable with doing a tax or a fee structure to pay for this thing,” said Sen. Craig Johnson, of Nassau. “We need to think very carefully about whether or not it’s wise to commit to an MTA capital plan without really knowing, or without having any semblance of an idea, of how to fund it.”
Johnson is the Senate’s representative on the four-member Capital Program Review Board, which has the final say on capital funding projects.
The money that does exist for the MTA’s capital plan, roughly $18 billion, runs out after two years. As a short-term compromise, supporters of the capital plan and MTA leaders have suggested that the Board break apart the plan and fund just those two years, and let the Legislature deal later with the last three.
But Johnson, whose vote may well determine the plan’s ultimate fate, said he was hesitant to embrace the two-year solution, adding that he may not have the legal authority to split the five-year blueprint.
“I have no legal opinion on that,” Johnson said. “My understanding is either I approve it or I don’t approve it.”
Johnson and his suburban compatriot, Suffolk State Sen. Brian Foley, have taken a cautious approach to the plan that may well imperil some of the MTA’s marquee projects. Johnson, for one, has met quietly with leaders of the MTA and Long Island Rail Road to express his concerns that the projects are unaffordable.
Foley, meanwhile, has been hesitant to commit to raising taxes to pay for the plan, and is considering staying out of the fight altogether, his aides say. In the Senate, he has pushed to have Suffolk removed from the payroll tax.
Foley declined to comment.
The MTA plan has also historically been paired with a Department of Transportation plan to fund infrastructure projects upstate and on Long Island, as a way to spread money broadly across the state and appease lawmakers from outside New York City. But if tradition holds, the DOT plan is unlikely to be approved if the MTA plan also gets shelved. That would put Johnson and Foley in a difficult spot, given that the MTA plan would require more unpopular taxes while the DOT plan would provide significant funding to their districts.
The lose-lose political situation has the GOP salivating.
“I absolutely would not have supported imposing a payroll tax,” said Lee Zeldin, Foley’s Republican opponent. “In Albany, they’re hoping to pass more policies that generate revenue to support their out-of-control spending.”
Gov. David Paterson’s handling of the issue has not helped, Senate Democratic aides and officials say. Almost immediately after his own Department of Transportation released its $28 billion proposal for upstate and suburban transportation projects, Paterson rejected the proposal, calling it too costly.
The governor’s aides even called several senators, such as Johnson and Foley, to notify them that the plan would be released, only to call back 10 minutes later to let them know that Paterson would come out against it.
The head-fake has frustrated some Senate Democrats, who say Paterson should have either supported the plan or shelved it. Instead, he has put marginal senators in the difficult position of having to oppose a plan that will benefit their districts because an unpopular governor will not sign it.
“It’s the DOT. It’s his own people,” said one Senate Democratic aide. “It doesn’t make any sense.”
The governor’s position is also at odds even with the more moderate members of the Senate’s city delegation—usually allies of Johnson and Foley—whose districts would be served by some of the MTA’s largest projects. They want the Senate to at least discuss ways to fund the $10 billion gap in the MTA capital plan at the Legislature’s upcoming special session.
As they do, State Sen. Joseph Addabbo said no one should foreclose the possibility of supporting new taxes or revenue streams to fill the gap in the plan.
“It’s a choose-your-poison kind of thing,” he said.
Addabbo cautioned, though, that such funding mechanisms should only take effect after the state’s finances have recovered from the recession.
Whether that happens will depend largely on how successfully Johnson and his fellow suburban members can negotiate with Senate leadership, who will also be caught between a crusading governor, aggressive Republicans and a dominant city delegation that craves transportation funding.
State Sen. Eric Schneiderman said he understood Johnson and Foley’s concerns, but nonetheless, he insisted, fully funding the MTA was non-negotiable—at least for city senators.
“There are some things you have to have,” he said. “You have to have heat, and you have to have transportation.”
--
above illustrations by Scott Williams
The two suburban senators are caught between Republicans who are eager to attack, city Democrats who want the plan fully funded and a governor who seems to have lost control over his own agencies. And the politically charged debate over the MTA plan, which includes roughly $28 billion for landmark projects such as the Second Avenue Subway, may end up in a legal quagmire, too.
The proposal has a funding gap of as much as $10 billion, which only the State Legislature could fill. Some members, mostly from New York City, want the Senate to find the money.
But others, especially those from Nassau and Suffolk, are reluctant to sign off on a new funding stream for the agency after being barraged with criticism over the widely unpopular regional payroll tax, which the Legislature approved as part of an MTA bailout earlier this year.“I am uncomfortable with doing a tax or a fee structure to pay for this thing,” said Sen. Craig Johnson, of Nassau. “We need to think very carefully about whether or not it’s wise to commit to an MTA capital plan without really knowing, or without having any semblance of an idea, of how to fund it.”
Johnson is the Senate’s representative on the four-member Capital Program Review Board, which has the final say on capital funding projects.
The money that does exist for the MTA’s capital plan, roughly $18 billion, runs out after two years. As a short-term compromise, supporters of the capital plan and MTA leaders have suggested that the Board break apart the plan and fund just those two years, and let the Legislature deal later with the last three.
But Johnson, whose vote may well determine the plan’s ultimate fate, said he was hesitant to embrace the two-year solution, adding that he may not have the legal authority to split the five-year blueprint.
“I have no legal opinion on that,” Johnson said. “My understanding is either I approve it or I don’t approve it.”
Johnson and his suburban compatriot, Suffolk State Sen. Brian Foley, have taken a cautious approach to the plan that may well imperil some of the MTA’s marquee projects. Johnson, for one, has met quietly with leaders of the MTA and Long Island Rail Road to express his concerns that the projects are unaffordable.
Foley, meanwhile, has been hesitant to commit to raising taxes to pay for the plan, and is considering staying out of the fight altogether, his aides say. In the Senate, he has pushed to have Suffolk removed from the payroll tax.
Foley declined to comment.
The MTA plan has also historically been paired with a Department of Transportation plan to fund infrastructure projects upstate and on Long Island, as a way to spread money broadly across the state and appease lawmakers from outside New York City. But if tradition holds, the DOT plan is unlikely to be approved if the MTA plan also gets shelved. That would put Johnson and Foley in a difficult spot, given that the MTA plan would require more unpopular taxes while the DOT plan would provide significant funding to their districts.
The lose-lose political situation has the GOP salivating.
“I absolutely would not have supported imposing a payroll tax,” said Lee Zeldin, Foley’s Republican opponent. “In Albany, they’re hoping to pass more policies that generate revenue to support their out-of-control spending.”
Gov. David Paterson’s handling of the issue has not helped, Senate Democratic aides and officials say. Almost immediately after his own Department of Transportation released its $28 billion proposal for upstate and suburban transportation projects, Paterson rejected the proposal, calling it too costly.
The governor’s aides even called several senators, such as Johnson and Foley, to notify them that the plan would be released, only to call back 10 minutes later to let them know that Paterson would come out against it.
The head-fake has frustrated some Senate Democrats, who say Paterson should have either supported the plan or shelved it. Instead, he has put marginal senators in the difficult position of having to oppose a plan that will benefit their districts because an unpopular governor will not sign it.
“It’s the DOT. It’s his own people,” said one Senate Democratic aide. “It doesn’t make any sense.”
The governor’s position is also at odds even with the more moderate members of the Senate’s city delegation—usually allies of Johnson and Foley—whose districts would be served by some of the MTA’s largest projects. They want the Senate to at least discuss ways to fund the $10 billion gap in the MTA capital plan at the Legislature’s upcoming special session.
As they do, State Sen. Joseph Addabbo said no one should foreclose the possibility of supporting new taxes or revenue streams to fill the gap in the plan.
“It’s a choose-your-poison kind of thing,” he said.
Addabbo cautioned, though, that such funding mechanisms should only take effect after the state’s finances have recovered from the recession.
Whether that happens will depend largely on how successfully Johnson and his fellow suburban members can negotiate with Senate leadership, who will also be caught between a crusading governor, aggressive Republicans and a dominant city delegation that craves transportation funding.
State Sen. Eric Schneiderman said he understood Johnson and Foley’s concerns, but nonetheless, he insisted, fully funding the MTA was non-negotiable—at least for city senators.
“There are some things you have to have,” he said. “You have to have heat, and you have to have transportation.”
--
above illustrations by Scott Williams
