Long Island Proposal to Become 51st State

briv

briv

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2006
Messages
2,083
Reaction score
3
From Newsday.com:



http://www.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/ny-listat0329,0,988985.story
Newsday.com

Sawicki presents 51st state proposal for Long Island

BY RICK BRAND
rick.brand@newsday.com
9:06 PM EDT, March 28, 2008

Looking to whack Albany with a political two-by-four, Suffolk Comptroller Joseph Sawicki and Dowling College agreed to launch a new feasibility study on the economics of Long Island seceding to become the 51st state.

Sawicki and Martin Cantor, director of Dowling's Long Island Economic and Social Policy Institute, announced the six-month study at a breakfast Friday on the Oakdale campus before local business and government leaders.

Both Sawicki and Cantor acknowledged such a split may be tough to sell politically to the rest of the state, but it is important to raise the issue to underline how much the region contributes to state operations and how much less it gets back -- a gap of $2.9 billion.

"It's time for us to begin to think outside the box. In our case, it's that sandbox in Albany that we must look beyond," said Sawicki, adding later, "If we were getting our fair share of education aid from the state, we wouldn't be here talking about this."

However, some in attendance raised questions about the logistics of secession, including how the new state of Long Island might disentangle itself from existing state infrastructure, including state universities, parks and roads, and what it would cost.

Others questioned how the new state government would deal with public employees in the state pension system.

Some raised more basic questions. "Who would run the Department of Motor Vehicles, and will there still be long lines?" asked architect Louis Giacalone.

While acknowledging some downsides, Dowling President Robert Gaffney said that on its own, Long Island, like many other states, could benefit by offering fewer and less costly Medicaid benefits than New York now provides. The idea, which has been around for decades, was studied in the 1980s.

John DeGregorio, a consultant and former teacher's union official, said that Long Island officials should also consider combining with other suburban counties like Rockland and Westchester, which would give them more clout. "If you talk to them," he said, "you'll be working with a much larger base."

Cantor said the joint study will seek to sort out costs, provide options about government structure and splitting assets and investigate the legal process needed to secede.

Michael Crowell, a state Labor Department official, said that "this is great for the boosters," but he wants a debate that includes those opposed to the idea. Given that 30 percent of Long Islanders work in New York City, he worried about backlash reaction from the city and state through commuter taxes and fees. "Is New York State going to stand still? They could retaliate," he said.

Whether the move succeeds or not, Sawicki said it is worth the effort to force the state to address Long Island's problems. "Maybe if we talk and act aggressively, it will send a message to Albany."

Copyright ? 2008, Newsday Inc.
Click to expand...
 
I assume this proposal is just for Nassau and Suffolk, not Brooklyn and Queens which are officially on Long Island.
 
(sigh) just another in a long line of fruitless New York state breakup proposals.

New Englanders should never support this, btw. More states dilute NE's deliciously outsized influence in Congress.
 
This really should be a April Fool's day joke
 
Better not let this happen or they might try and annex Boston University.
 
Silber did help plan a much nicer campus than MIT, imo. I would have rued the day he became governor, but he was right about the Starchitects.
 
BU's new buildings are guilty of boring brick Boston provincialism at best and of its palid precast future at worst.

MIT has helped put the city on the contemporary architectural map.
 
Last edited:
I would never say I would want my son to go to BU over MIT(though either would be just fine with me) but BU seems to have made their students more comfortable particularly in their new dorms.

Where the BU student says "Check out my view of the Charles" the MIT student says "Welcome to my hovel".
 
^^I spent last Thursday night at a friends (BU) dorm on Buick St. and I have to say that I was beyond impressed. It was a suite with four single bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, ample living room with a fantastic view of the Charles (I woke up see rowing practice in the rain) with the skyline in the background, and enough kitchen space w/ a full size fridge. Truth is, half of the roomates and their guests didn't appreciate how lucky they were.

That being said, I don't know what else besides comfort of student housing that BU beats MIT in.
 
What MIT's campus lacks in layout and density, it makes up for in sheer architectural force. Silber may have hit a few nails on the head regarding the pomposity of starcitecture, but it's hard to argue that buildings like the Stata Center or Simmons Hall don't have an appeal that recent BU buildings are missing.

I used to think the Stata Center was a kind of tepid building from a seriously overrated architect, but since I've been working near it, I've warmed up to it a lot. It's certainly more interesting to look at than most of it's surrounding buildings.
 
^There's no question that Strata is a great building (I wouldn't go so far as to say "masterpiece" especially in comparison to other buildings on the MIT campus); but would you say it's on par with some of Gehry's best (or perceived "best") works? It's certainly not among his worst, but I wouldn't put it in his top 5.
 
Stata doesn't have to be Bilbao to succeed at what I said it did (putting Boston on the architectural map). What recent building in Boston has received more media attention? Simmons and even the ICA may be of higher quality, but MIT got what most Gehry clients are looking for (if even for the wrong reasons...a few leaks aren't national news when they happen in a conventional building, though).

Oh, and, yes, BU has comfortable dorms. But I can also buy a 4,000 sq. ft. McMansion in Evansville, IN for $102,000...accessible comfort and spaciousness is not exactly the most important rubric for urban/architectural success.
 
Also, back to the Silber, there's a great interview on Studio 360 where Kurt Anderson takes him to task regarding his love of Gaudi and the Sydney Opera House, but loathing of Gehry(well, not really): Stream
 
czsz said:
Stata doesn't have to be Bilbao to succeed at what I said it did (putting Boston on the architectural map). What recent building in Boston has received more media attention? Simmons and even the ICA may be of higher quality, but MIT got what most Gehry clients are looking for (if even for the wrong reasons...a few leaks aren't national news when they happen in a conventional building, though).

Oh, and, yes, BU has comfortable dorms. But I can also buy a 4,000 sq. ft. McMansion in Evansville, IN for $102,000...accessible comfort and spaciousness is not exactly the most important rubric for urban/architectural success.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with you, in fact, on your second point I agree completely. I was just noting that those BU students have a great thing going for them and they take it for granted. What's the point of building super comfortable dorms (albeit in cheap, flavor-of-the-week styles) with stunning views if no one who's not an architecture or city-planning major cares? MIT is leaps and bounds ahead of BU architecturally and I'm not sure, but I'm willing to bet that while the students at MIT may appreciate their architecture more, a small part of them wouldn't mind having that comfy 4 room suite overlooking the river. I think college buildings, especially the residential ones, tend to be vastly under-appreciated by the people who use them. It's a grass is always greener scenario for students.

I don't think any recent building has drawn the attention that Strata has and in that sense, Gehry has succeeded. It obviously stands out and most likely will for decades. The leaks and other maintenance issues are minor issues because an institution such as MIT can afford to fix them. I simply don't think it's one of Gehry's best works.
 
Do BU kids get to move directly into those buildings as freshmen (as in, from their parents' suburban homes)? I feel as if college housing normally serves a critical function of helping one appreciate what truly is or isn't luxurious, and it sounds as if BU isn't affording its students that opportunity. Where I went to college, we moved into utterly, utterly crappy freshman dorms (monklike cells built ca. 1925, wading through frozen puke on the concrete bathroom floor on winter mornings, endlessly climbing ten stories because the elevator never worked), usually landed even worse accommodation sophomore year (with 81 square feet, those Tokyo desk drawer hotels start looking good), and gradually improved to "luxurious" (but nowhere near BU standards) housing before graduation. Literally every crappy little apartment I or my friends have lived in since has felt like a comparative luxury.
 
My friend is a senior in superior academic standing and so is one of her room mates (the other two were out for the evening and we never discussed them). The dorm is at 10 Buick, and I think it's all upperclassmen. Her first two years were in crappy dorms closer to Kenmore, but only crappy by BU standards from what I hear (I've never seen them personally, but they used to be hotels and have heard they're more than sufficient).

West Campus is supposed to be pretty nice, and I have an underclassmen friend who lives there, but it's not on par with 10 Buick.

Long story short, BU takes a similar approach to most other schools (I had a force triple- 3 people in a room for 2- my freshman year), but the change is not as profound because even some of the worst dorms were old hotel rooms so they're far better than what a typical freshman/sophomore dorm is like anywhere else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top