I hate it when Mayor Bloombertg does something right. Lucky for me, when, as here, he takes a positive step, he does it in a negative way. So the good news is also the bad news.

As long hinted, Mayor Bloomberg has taken the useful, if somewhat technical, step or implementing for NYC planning purposes a somewhat more realistic definition of “poverty.” Announced by Deputy Mayor Linda Gibbs at the annual convention of the NAACP, the new formula will take into account some actual costs of living unlike the previous standard still used by the Federal Government (a jury-rigged, back-of-the envelope calculation accidentally frozen into federal law). The New York Times account is here , the Washington Post's is here and Gail Robinson's Gotham Gazette squib is here. The result of the Bloomberg rejiggering is that there are now, by NYC count, somewhat more poor people and somewhat fewer extremely poor people. (Why? Because the new model counts as income government benefits such as food stamps and Medicaid)The NY Post's amazing take after the jump.

The bad news?

Because spin, data manipulation and misleading statements seem so crucial to Mayor Bloomberg’s policies and practices, it’s as shocking as an ice cold shower when the NYC shifts to realistic data collection for policy planning. Evidence-based planning, absent elsewhere in Mr. Bloomberg’s universe (about which I will post shortly), is being introduced by NYC’s Center on Economic Opportunity. . It galls me to say it, but, Mayor Bloomberg and his Deputy Linda Gibbs deserve praise for this effort. Update: Late December New York Times report is here .