Posted by MikeW on August 15, 2001 at 13:34:44:
In Reply to: Depends more on the Dems posted by TenantNet on August 15, 2001 at 13:20:02:
... could have vetoed them outright but didn't.
This time around, it'll depend on if Pataki is eyeing a run at Chuck Shumer's Senate seat in 2004. Pataki's only career path seems to be in that direction. If he is, I think he'll cave again and the regs will get renewed (probably with some more weakening along the way). He could wait till 2004 and run against Hillary. If that's the case, he might go ahead and block a renewal, since all the mayham would be over by that point. Also, the end of rent regulation might also bring alot of Republican voters into the city, and drive a fair amount of Democrats out.
: Actually Pataki was looking for anyway out. It was Sheldon Silver and other Democrats who actually encouraged the weakening (yes, with Bruno's help). Our old newsletters expound on this more. And much of the blame can go to Cuomo the elder. In political terms, it has to do with the confidence and efficacy of public policy. Cuomo undermined the regs in a variety of ways to give the RE industry the tools to change the perception of the public policy. And the public has lost confidence in the system because in many ways, it just doesn't work. But we'll leave it at that as thisss shouldn't be a drawn-out thread.
: : Yes, the rent regulations were almost allowed to expire in '97. Basically Pataki, who was facing reelection the following year caved in and allowed them to be renewed.
Note: Posting is disabled in all archives
Post a Followup