But Then Who Would Ever Go To Staten Island?

It’s hard to fathom why a Councilmember representing Staten Island would be trying to make it more difficult to get to Saten Island, but thankfully apparently nothing will come of the proposal to start charging tourists to ride the Staten Island Ferry:

One of New York’s few free rides could be sunk by the city government’s desire for new revenue.

City Council member James Oddo wants to start charging tourists who take a ride on the Staten Island Ferry.

“It’s a way of taking the burden off New Yorkers,” said Mr. Oddo, a Republican who represents Staten Island, said. “How much do tourists pay for the Circle Line?”

At Mr. Oddo’s urging, the city’s Independent Budget Office recently released a report called the “Estimate of Revenues and Costs of Staten Island Ferry ‘Tourist’ Fares.”

The report examined fares at $1, $2, $3 and $4, while taking into consideration the extra costs that the program would incur, such as adding ticket vending machines and gates. The report also assumed that annual ridership would decline as fares rose.

About 57,000 riders take the Staten Island Ferry each week. Of those, about 41,000 are Staten Island residents.

According to the report, fare revenues would exceed costs and create a surplus at every dollar increment above $1. At $2, the city would profit about $4 million a year; at $3 about $7 million a year; and at $4 about $10 million a year.

. . .

The Staten Island Ferry became one of the few commuter ferries in the country to offer unlimited free rides in 1997 when a 50 cent fare was tossed to the wayside by Mayor Giuliani in what was seen as a reward by the Republican mayor to one of the only reliably Republican parts of New York City. Presently, the estimated annual budget of the New York City Department of Transportation for the ferry is about $80 million.

Previously: But Then Who Would Ride The Ferry?

Beep Beep!

Borough Presidents . . . what is it they do again? Perhaps they discuss that very issue when they get together:

The five New York City borough presidents agree on many issues: The need for more affordable housing; their common struggle to control development and traffic in their communities, and their desire to preserve their office budgets from further cuts.

. . .

All five chief executives — Staten Island’s James P. Molinaro, Marty Markowitz of Brooklyn, Adolfo Carrion of the Bronx, Helen Marshall of Queens and newly elected Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer — gathered yesterday in the Roadhouse restaurant in Sunnyside [Staten Island] for one of their semi-regular meetings.

Health Violations Abound, Some Customers Undeterred

God willing, the lines at the Shake Shack may get a lot shorter now:

The Shake Shack in Madison Square Park — famed for stellar reviews and airport-length lines — has been hit by the city Heath Department with 15 violations that total an astounding 140 points, officials said.

A passing grade is 27 points or less.

The violations include vermin, evidence of flying insects, food-handling workers sneezing, coughing and failing to wash their hands after visiting the toilet, contamination of food and food kept too warm.

. . .

The news left diners a bit shaky.

“I don’t usually eat meat, but I decided to get a burger,” said a woman who asked not to be identified. “It’s really distressing because I know people that work for this organization, and they’re fabulous.”

“This is my third time,” said Jeemin Lee, 27, a student from Atlanta. “It’s in the park, they have good prices, and they don’t use frozen meat. But if it’s dirty, then I definitely won’t come back here.”

This, however, is just poking your finger in the 80% lean raw patty of fate:

Some customers aren’t bothered by the fuss.

“I’ll probably come back,” said frequent diner Stefanie Chinn from Manhattan. “I haven’t gotten sick yet.”

“Yet” . . .

Honestly, I’d Care A Little More About Your Civil Liberties If Homeland Security Wasn’t Waving So Much Damn Cash In My Face

Hizzoner says that the 505 surveillance cameras going up around the city are not meant to catch terrorists more than they are there to nab petty criminals. Is that supposed to make anyone feel better?

Mayor Michael Bloomberg said yesterday that the main purpose of the 505 surveillance cameras soon to pop up in 253 spots around the city is to fight everyday street crime rather than catch terrorists.

“The crime that we worry about day in and day out mostly is street crime,” he told reporters during a news conference. “That’s what we’ve got to bring down.”

Bloomberg said the likelihood of a terrorist attack is hopefully lessened because of the city’s prevention measures, intelligence-gathering and counterterrorism work.

The surveillance cameras, which will be installed in high-traffic, high-crime areas, are key to combating street crime, the mayor said.

“When there is a crime committed, one of the first things the police do is look in the neighborhood and see if there’s a camera in a store that’s been running, that may catch the perpetrator,” Bloomberg added.

Fair enough — I don’t mind them getting a little Big Brother on us if it can help them figure out who busted my windshield — but isn’t the idea of a Homeland Security grant to focus on the whole problem of wackos with bombs? Or maybe I’m naive for assuming that’s what they’d use it for:

At about $18,000 per camera, the total system will cost in excess of $9.1 million, to be funded with federal homeland security grants, said Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly during a hearing before the City Council Public Safety Committee Tuesday.

Police are now in the process of picking a contractor to install the cameras — closed-circuit televisions that will likely not be monitored in real time but will provide footage for police to scour after a crime happens.

Meant to act as a deterrent as well, the cameras will be highly visible under signs reading: “Area Under NYPD Video Surveillance.”

And not to get all, you know, ACLU about it, but people on Staten Island don’t have even the slightest pretext that these have anything to do with terrorism:

Many [cameras] come courtesy of the borough’s most avid proponent of surveillance cameras, Councilman James Oddo (R-Mid-Island/Brooklyn), who has allocated nearly $1.5 million toward them. He funded cameras that now record the bustle in six public schools. A $35,000 surveillance system he funded for the Jewish Community Center in Sea View helped catch two teen-agers who set fire to center property in December 2004.

Oddo reported that the city Housing Authority has given him the go-ahead to install closed-circuit televisions in the Berry Houses and South Beach Houses. He is now working on getting the money through City Council capital funds.

Councilman Michael McMahon (D-North Shore) offered his own list of hot spots yesterday, mostly delis and other retail operations that have become the focal point of drug deals and other crime.

His suggested sites include the Arlington Terrace Apartments, the corner of Brabant Street and Harbor Road in Mariners Harbor, a stretch of Richmond Terrace in Port Richmond where prostitution has been reported and Castleton Avenue at the corner of Port Richmond Avenue in Port Richmond and the corner of Broadway in West Brighton.

Schools, public housing, parks — you get the idea what these cameras are really used for. And with the mayor saying flatly that is what they’re used for, well, there you go.

Because They’re Not “Parolees” So Much As They Are Our Clients From Whom We Should Be Getting More Feedback About How Well We Are Serving Them

Parole officers argue that Total Quality Management techniques aren’t necessarily applicable to every work environment:

A detailed questionnaire that allows felons to judge the performance of their parole officers has the officers up in arms, claiming the ex-jailbirds are in no position to evaluate their work.
The survey, a rough draft of which was obtained by The Post, asks ex-convicts about their employment status, drug use, living arrangements and how well their parole officers work with them — a query that makes the officers livid.

“Do you know what a field day these violent felons, these vicious criminals are going to have?” asked an incredulous Parole Officer Manuelita Clemente, a council leader with Division 236 of the Public Employees Federation.

. . .

According to law-enforcement sources, the questionnaire was e-mailed to regional directors and area supervisors from parole administrators in Albany late last week.

Sources also said the opinion polls will be distributed in waiting rooms of parole facilities, allowing ex-cons to fill the sheets out before their visits with the officers.

. . .

Among the queries that have parole officers steamed are: “My parole officer cared whether I completed parole . . . yes or no” and “Was the parole officer very interested in your problems on a scale of 1 (no) to 5 (yes).”

“I am not supposed to be interested in them; my job is to supervise them,” said one parole boss who found that question particularly offensive.