How Do You Make Community Boards Even Less Relevant?

Allow 16- and 17-year-old representatives to vote:

State law does not allow 16- and 17-year-olds to vote on community boards. State and city bills introduced last month would allow 16- and 17-year olds to vote on the boards, which have advisory responsibilities.

Francine Baras, executive director of Future Voters of America, a nonprofit group, described the effort as a compromise stemming from an earlier effort to lower the voting age in city elections that met considerable opposition.

“It’s funny,” said Councilwoman Gale Brewer, who introduced the bill calling for a lowered age limit in the City Council. “People are nervous about 16- and 17-year-olds.”

Ms. Brewer’s resolution lists some things 16- and 17-year-old state residents can already do: obtain a learner’s permit to drive, be tried and charged as adults in criminal matters, obtain a marriage license with parental consent, hold a job and pay taxes. In the language of her bill, imposing these responsibilities yet denying members of this age group the right to take part in their city government leaves them “disenfranchised” and “second-class citizens.”

Supporters say that 16- and 17-year-olds would bring a unique perspective to local government, especially with regard to issues involving schools and youth services, and suggest that youthful enthusiasm that has been evident in national politics in recent months can fuel involvement at the local level.

Think about the irony of allowing underage members to approve liquor licenses . . . in an advisory capacity only, of course. Brilliant!

Mayor Bloomberg On Transportation Priorities

In case you thought it would be a good thing for the City to control transportation projects, there’s this — Hizzoner paying a little too much attention to the wrong parts of the Power Broker:

Bloomberg said Friday that a week or two ago, developer Jerry Speyer expressed concerns about whether the city would complete the 7 subway line extension critical to the $1 billion project.

“If I were you,” the mayor said he told Speyer, “I would make absolutely, positively sure that we are going to build that subway before I put one dime of my own money in.”

The MTA’s announcement Thursday night that it had canned the Tishman-Speyer deal came without warning to the mayor, City Hall insiders said.

. . .

Neither Bloomberg staffers nor Tishman-Speyer representatives would discuss the outcome of the hour-long talk at Bloomberg’s London apartment Friday.

“The plan isn’t dead by any means,” Bloomberg said before the sitdown. “All these things go though many cycles.

“The No. 7 line is going to get done,” the mayor added, “and it will be so far along before I leave office that nobody’s going to be able to stop it.”

Plans for the site include thousands of units of housing, commercial skyscrapers, a school and parkland.

Oh, well as long as there’s a park — and a school! — Robert Moses would smile, since he popularized the “get as far along as possible and make ’em take it back down” philosophy of urban planning (recently embraced by Bruce Ratner, among others).

Imagine If Walker Evans Had Had A YouTube Account

The current style of pants is too tight anyway:

A pervert with a Metro-Card and a camera likes to zoom in on the groins of male subway riders and then post his videos on the Internet, The Post has learned.

“The bulge on him just brings so much to the imagination . . . and the fact that he was oblivious to my filming is so great,” the 27- year-old filmmaker — who calls himself househead7d5 — gleefully recounts.

On another of his dozen clips, titled “sexy guy on 5 train,” as the subway pulls into 86th Street, househead7d5 tilts up from the man’s crotch, briefly, to his face.

“See this guy, and he sees me back,” says the description.

Because nothing shown on these videos isn’t already on public display and houshead7d5 is not earning money from his voyeurism, there is technically nothing criminal or actionable about his work, say attorney Rosemarie Arnold and other legal experts.

Silver Comes To Take His Toys Away

Mayor Bloomberg is a man who loves all kinds of gadgets. So disturbing hobby time is a risky proposition, done at your own peril:

A defeat of congestion pricing in the Assembly may irrevocably rupture the relationship between Speaker Sheldon Silver and Mayor Bloomberg and provoke an open conflict between the two city leaders.

Mr. Bloomberg, who has said repeatedly that he supports politicians who back his policies, might be tempted to do the opposite if his plan to charge motorists a fee to drive into the busy parts of Manhattan collapses in the Assembly, on which Mr. Silver wields tremendous influence.

“The danger could be that it does get personalized,” a former top aide to Mr. Bloomberg, William Cunningham, said. “Could there be a time when the mayor gets fed up with the games? Yes, I suppose so. He’s human.”

The mayor may use his political influence and fortune against Mr. Silver, political insiders say. This year, Mr. Silver, 64, is expected to face at least two Democratic primary opponents in September. Mr. Bloomberg could go as far as to endorse and provide financial support for one of the challengers.

When You’ve Lost The Villager . . .

. . . maybe it’s time to rethink your strategy — “Tenants freak out at meeting on Wash. Sq. Village ideas”:

Residents of Washington Square Village erupted in anger and panic at a March 13 meeting on New York University’s possible future redevelopment of the superblocks south of Washington Square Park.

More than 150 residents of the four-building complex between W. Third and Bleecker Sts. from LaGuardia Pl. to Mercer St. reacted to the presentation of the long-range N.Y.U. 2031 scenario as if it were an eviction notice.

Alicia Hurley, associate vice president for government and community affairs, began the meeting by noting that 2031 will be the university’s 200th anniversary. The presentation, she said, was intended to involve the community in exploring “ideas about possibilities five to 10 years away or even 35 to 50 years away.”

But before Will Haas, N.Y.U. planning director, completed the presentation, tenants interrupted by calling the plans “ruthless” and demanding, “Where do the tenants go?”

. . .

Residents refused to accept the validity of any scenario that does not specify exactly how any new buildings would be used.

“We’re not sure what we’ll need 25 years from now,” Hurley replied. Residents also seemed to ignore Hurley’s assertion that the demolition of Washington Square Village was not the only possibility and, in any case, would be years in the future.

Residents paid no attention to distributed copies of the planning principles that N.Y.U. agreed to this year, one of which promises a tenant relocation policy for legal residential tenants if required by construction.

“If I have to relocate I might just relocate myself out of here and take my grant money with me,” another resident said.

“Why is your need for space greater than our need for space?” asked another.

“Nazi tactics,” charged one resident, adding, “I’m not calling you a Nazi, I’m saying the tactics your are using are Nazi.” Hurley was indignant but restrained at that comment, but when another resident said the meeting was “a waste of time” and intended only to “razzle tenants,” Hurley suggested that anyone who agreed should leave the meeting. No one made a move to go.