....April 12, 6:11 PM
 
 
   
Tony Avella Zones Out On Pool Violation

Tony Avella & Mike Schenkler hoilday time 2006.
By MICHAEL SCHENKLER

C’mon, Tony!

Let’s not let the facts interfere with your political spin – that’s exactly how you’re sounding. And I’m surprised at you.

Last week, when this paper revealed that City Councilman Tony Avella’ above ground swimming pool was placed too close to the property line violating city zoning law, we were doing our job.

As a matter of fact, Trib editor Brian Rafferty was doing his job very well. No, it wasn’t a tip or political setup or hatchet job as claimed by Avella; it was good fundamental research and reporting by Rafferty and reporter Theresa Juva.

Rafferty uncovered the violation by solid research. Juva did the rest and reported the story.

Avella responded with a smokescreen – an embarrassment for a man of principle.

Avella spoke to Rafferty and accused the paper of hitting “below the belt” and being “inaccurate.” He said he has lost respect for our paper because this was a “hatchet job” and “purely politically motivated.”

I’ve known Tony for a long time; I’ve considered him a friend. I admire his willingness to stand alone and fight when he believes the cause is just. We have endorsed him and supported many of his efforts. He has received his share of praise from this writer. And he has deserved it.

To us, he is New York City’s “Mr. Zoning.” He is as well-informed and as knowledgeable as any elected official on residential zoning and has led much of the City’s effort to rewrite residential zoning code. He has been a strong voice for enforcement.

Well, regardless of what got the inspectors to his house – Tony’s claims of political vendetta are irrelevant – the facts are clear. The code says his above ground pool cannot be closer to the property line than five feet. Tony’s pool is less than two feet from the property line.

The violation should be corrected; the pool should be moved.

Tony now challenges the reasoning behind the law and wants to know why is exists.

For six years – four of them before he received the violation – Tony’s Council Committee was the place where hearings could be held and rewrites initiated, if a zoning law required change. If indeed the law was poorly conceived or archaic, his committee was charged with looking at it.

The present zoning rewrite is not changing the code which Tony’s pool violates. Tony never even raised the issue as the Council’s lead person and chair of Zoning.

Behind closed doors he negotiated to make his violation go away. He didn’t tell the public what he was doing. We have no reason to believe he informed the Speaker. He met with Dept. of Buildings officials asking that they not enforce the code against him.

When caught, what does he do?

He accuses this paper of a political hatchet job?

Tony, what are we hatcheting? You can’t be suggesting that we are attempting to undermine your very long-shot Mayoral run in 2009? You’re not up for re-election. And Tony, we like you and are still open on our 2009 picks – that’s a long way off.

Tony called a press conference on Monday where he planned to attack the Department of Buildings claiming “continued nonsense in cracking down on honest homeowners.” He also planned to announce his intention to “sue the city” over the “completely arbitrary and capricious” pool zoning code.

We wouldn’t know what exactly happened at that press conference because Tony denied our reporter access to it.

Well, this city learned from the previous and present Mayors that maintenance of our quality of life is dependent on enforcement of the big and small laws. Tony’s pool is in violation; the law must be enforced.

To sue the city is both a political show and an absurd waste of city legal resources. If the law is bad, Tony’s committee and the Council on which he has served for the past six years have had the opportunity to change or eliminate it.

We think the facts are clear.

Tony’s pool is in violation of zoning code and he should move it. His arguments just don’t hold water and he needs to grow a thicker skin if he wants to stay afloat in his race for City Hall in 2009.

 
 
The Press & Public Rate the Budget

By HENRY STERN

The State budget was adopted Sunday, April 1, a few hours after the Constitutional deadline, but that’s “good enough for government work.”

The legislators, and the public, had no chance to read it.

The initial press comments were negative on the role of Gov. Eliot Spitzer with regard to the budget. Michael Goodwin of the News, wrote: ”Let’s chalk his first 100 days up to inexperience and poor judgment and allow him to begin again.”

The Post’s Fred Dicker slammed the governor: “Frankly, the price paid for your failure — in terms of the public’s money and the severe damage to your reputation — could hardly be higher.

The Post’s, E.J. McMahon chipped in with: “After a back-room negotiating process that represented a step backward for budget-making transparency, Spitzer’s governance slogan has morphed from an assertive ‘Day One - Everything Changes’ to a plaintive Rome Wasn’t Built in a Day.’”

Responding to these negative views by reporters, the editorial boards came to the support of the governor.

The Times Editorial: “Mr. Spitzer made some compromises, but in exchange he won important and fundamental changes in the way the state operates. New Yorkers who yearn for a government that works more for its citizens than for the stale, political subculture in Albany should soon be able to recognize that Mr. Spitzer has gotten off to a good start.”

The News: “Gov. Spitzer was the driving force behind this education bonanza, and he deserves thanks for delivering in the face of entrenched interests that have had their own way for far too many a year. To knock the rookie governor for not achieving 100 percent of his goals while failing to transform lawmakers into Boy and Girl Scouts is to engage in otherworldly quibbling.”

The Post was not on the reservation: “Gov. Spitzer got taken to school last week, that’s what happened, and New Yorkers will be paying for his crash course in Albany realpolitik for years to come. ‘Everything Changes on Day One?’ “Hardly…”

How do the people of the State feel about this controversy? The Quinnipiac poll Wednesday, April 4: “There’s nothing like a knock-down, drag-out New York State budget battle to take the steam out of even the most vigorous steamroller. Budget stories dominated the media and Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s job approval sagged. On the budget, did Gov. Spitzer win a ‘fair compromise?’ Slightly more voters say he gave away too much.”

The good news for the governor is that on the most vital statistic, the approval rating, Gov. Spitzer won a 48-27 vote of confidence. His self-described “steamroller” style was approved by a 47-36 vote. The bad news is that these numbers are down from a 61-11 approval rating in Quinnipiac’s Feb. 13 poll.

The fact is, the people still like the governor, but public taste is fickle. Working in his favor is the fact that his colleagues, Bruno and Silver, get far lower ratings. Silver had 30 approving and 30 disapproving, while Bruno had 27 positive and 34 negative, perhaps as a result of his purported pending indictment. The legislature as a whole received an unfavorable rating, 34 positive and 43 negative.

Whenever a compromise is reached, both sides can proclaim that they have won. That is the case with regard to the budget. We don’t think it’s worthwhile to declare a winner, but reformers are usually disappointed at the outcome of negotiations because they do not get all they want.

In almost all cases where there is conflict, we, and the newspaper editorial boards, seem to find ourselves in agreement with Gov. Spitzer and not with the odd couple of Silver and Bruno. Each legislative leader has his own sacred cows: In Bruno’s case, hospitals and their unions (who supported the Republican for that state senate vacancy in Nassau), armed hunters, and Long Island school districts (whose state subsidy was increased by double digits). Silver, has a different set of favorites: public employee unions, plaintiff’s lawyers and the criminal defense bar, among others.

It is hard for us to tell which side got the better of the negotiations. If they are all boasting about the result, that is probably being done for show purposes.

There are many things to say about the governor’s rocky start The problem is complicated by the fact that we all want him to succeed. But there is no question that hopes for significant change have diminished in the first hundred days, along with the governor’s popularity. Why that is so, and what can be done about it, are questions which we will discuss shortly.

Not4Publication.com by Dom Nunziato
Michael Schenkler can be reached via this contact form.