An interesting story in the Washington Post highlights a very tangible downside to the rapacious gentrification and condopalooza overtaking the five boroughs: a form of food insecurity tied to geography, not income.

Alicia Rivera has no good supermarket within walking distance of her Brooklyn home. A leg injury keeps her from taking the bus, so every three weeks a friend picks her up and drives her to a different neighborhood to stock up on green peppers, milk, chicken wings, ground beef -- as much as she can fit in her kitchen to last until the next shopping trip.

"It's hard," Rivera said as she unloaded her haul from the car into a cart. She buys mainly what she can freeze, and that means few fruits and vegetables. "I wish there was a good store close by," she added.

There's more.  read more »

I'm not normally a Bloomberg booster, but the mayor's PlaNYC is really praiseworthy. Daniel has done a great job linking to reporting and analysis on the specific proposal for congestion pricing. He notes, correctly, that the devil is in the details. I want to argue that when you consider the details, congestion pricing comes out looking like an excellent - even crucial - idea.

It's true that congestion charges, viewed in isolation, would constitute a regressive tax (though New Yorkers paying an $8 fee would have it easy compared to Londoners, who pay twice as much). But the regressiveness can be mitigated. As Jackie Ashley wrote in the Guardian in February, "We need sharp, specialised instruments, not blunt ones." Congestion charges could be offset somewhat by reductions in other regressive taxes or fees; those who are particularly reliant on their cars - for instance, people with disabilities - could be provided with exemptions. This article in the Daily News suggests additional ways to ease the burden where appropriate: for instance, by allowing drivers five free trips a year and by reducing bus fares in neighborhoods not served by subways.

Balancing the burden would help make congestion pricing less regressive. But in a larger sense, it's a very progressive idea - especially when you consider that fewer than 5% of New Yorkers actually drive to work in Manhattan. Like a carbon tax, congestion charging would be a means of using tax policy to discourage behavior that hurts the public interest. Traffic congestion damages public health and costs the city billions of dollars a year; it also contributes to global climate change. And it is inherently progressive - redistributive - to focus transportation policy on improving mass transit as opposed to automobile traffic.

The real key, and the reason Mayor Bloomberg deserves a good deal of praise, is that congestion pricing is understood as being only one element in a far-sighted plan to address the considerable challenges New York faces over the next two decades. Give Bloomberg credit - he recognized a moment of fiscal and political opportunity, and rather than squandering it, he's using it to the public's advantage. It's only when you look at how congestion pricing fits into this larger strategy that you realize how progressive it actually is.

Think of PlaNYC as comprising four complementary plans. Congestion pricing is important to and made more progressive by each of them:  read more »

Several news outlets have covered the Duffield Abolitionist homes.

The Real Estate Observer gives us a nice shout out.

Curbed summarizes the last DailyGotham post.

The Gowanus Lounge also wades in, and NY Magazine offers a few words.

NoLandGrab offers original analysis by picking up a point published here. AKRF/NYCEDC chose to print a map without its legend, and NoLandGrab suggests that the missing legend offers support of the residents' oral histories.

Thanks y'all for keeping this on the burner!

Warning: the following post includes confusing details meant to discourage public participation. Some patience and bravery is advised.

In a stunning move of extreme waffling, the office of Melinda Katz has rescheduled the public hearing on Duffield Street from April 11 to May 1. Or maybe it will be April 17, but we won't know for sure until a few days before the meeting.

Action Advisory:
Email Christine Quinn at quinn@council.nyc.ny.us and
Melinda Katz at katz@council.nyc.ny.us

Write that the destruction of the Underground Railroad deserves a fair hearing. The City should not waddle through the seizure by eminent domain of private homes in a haphazard manner.

Stick to the announced date of May 1 for the public hearing on the Duffield Street Abolitionist homes!

In their messy attempt to help squelch any further exploration of this history, the City Council has in the space of about three weeks rescheduled the public hearing on this three times. The EDC, with AKRF (a private entity dedicated to destroying communities in the way of big development plans), spent two years studying the historical record. The 500+ page report was released 3/13/07 and the first public hearing was scheduled 3/20, giving the public no time to review the report. After some pressure from Tish James and others, they rescheduled the meeting to 4/11. On April 5 at about 5:00 pm, Council Member Katz's office let word out that the meeting will be delayed until May 1. Or maybe not.  read more »