Contact: Colleen Roche (212) 788-2958 or Dwight Williams (212) 788-2972
The bill adds a new Section 19-162.1 to the Administrative Code to allow full-time clergy members to park in posted no parking spaces adjacent to their house of worship, hospitals, nursing homes and hospice residences. Parking will be permissible for a period of up to four hours upon the roadway adjacent to a house of worship where the full-time clergy member officiates or presides, or for a period of up to three hours on the roadway adjacent to a hospital where the full-time member of the clergy is performing official duties. The bill's provisions would apply to all full-time clergy as defined in the religious corporations law, including, but not limited to, a pastor, rector, priest, rabbi or imam who officiate or preside over services on behalf of a religious corporation or association. The Department of Transportation will issue a permit to any religious corporation or association requesting one, and the permit will cover up to three vehicles owned by full-time qualifying clergy associated with such religious corporation or association. The license plate numbers of all vehicles covered by the permit must be displayed on the front side of the permit.
The bill will grant full-time members of the clergy, who are frequently called upon to respond to emergency situations, a limited parking privilege to facilitate their official duties and respond to people in need. The bill will significantly relieve full-time clergy members of the burden of complying with posted no-parking restrictions while they are attending the sick and performing official functions at their houses of worship. The permit will not allow parking in no standing or stopping areas, in front of driveways or fire hydrants, or in other areas where the Department of Transportation traffic rules prohibit parking.
I will first turn to the sponsors of this bill and to any other elected official wishing to speak.
Now I will turn to the general audience. Is there anyone in the general audience to be heard in opposition? Is there anyone in the general audience to be heard in support?
There being no one else to be heard, and for the reasons previously stated, I will now sign the bill.
. The Senior Citizen Homeowners Exemption Program (SCHE) provides for partial exemption from New York City real property tax for eligible seniors. The level of exemption they receive is determined according to a graduated income eligibility schedule. Those eligible homeowners with the lowest income receive a 50% exemption, while those at the higher end of the income scale may receive a 5% exemption.
To qualify for SCHE, applicants must be at least 65 years of age and be the owner-occupant of the property for which the exemption is available and must be used exclusively for residential purposes. Currently, applicants must also have income of less than $25,900 and have held title to the property for at least twelve months to qualify for any exemption under SCHE.
This legislation adjusts the graduated income eligibility schedule under the program. The maximum annual income level for those eligible to receive the 50% exemption would increase from $17,500 to $18,500, while the maximum income of those eligible to receive a 5% exemption would increase from $25,900 to $26,900, with those income levels in between adjusted accordingly. The adjustments embodied in this bill were authorized by New York State enabling legislation signed into law by Governor Pataki on June 11, 1996.
The need for affordable housing is one of the most important issues facing older New Yorkers today. With most elderly living on fixed incomes and many becoming increasingly frail as they grow older, finding or maintaining appropriate housing is critical. Toward this end this legislation will allow additional numbers of seniors, on fixed incomes to be eligible for this benefit, and more importantly, will allow them to continue to live in their own homes. This City is committed, in spite of fiscal constraints, to strengthening this program.
I will first turn to the sponsors of the bill and then to any other elected official wishing to speak.
Now I turn to the general audience. Is there anyone in the general audience to be heard in opposition? Is there anyone in the general audience to be heard in support?
There being no one else to be heard, and for the reasons previously stated, I will sign the bill.
For many years a combined sales tax rate of over 18% was imposed on parking and garage services in Manhattan. In view of this significant financial burden that was being imposed on Manhattan residents, local legislation was enacted in 1985 pursuant to state enabling legislation to exempt "residential parking" from the 8% portion of the tax. This legislation provided that the additional parking tax not apply to individuals who own their motor vehicles. When this residential parking tax exemption was enacted in 1985, motor vehicle leasing comprised a considerably smaller percentage of the market than it does today. According to the Automobile Club of New York, Inc., recent statistics indicate that one third of all new motor vehicles are leased rather than purchased, and that motorists are increasingly choosing this form of possession. Because of this shift in the marketplace, many residents who should be receiving the benefits of the residential parking exemption do not simply because they lease their cars. In 1995, the state enacted legislation which provided the City of New York with the authority to amend the administrative code to extend the residential parking tax exemption to Manhattan residents who lease motor vehicles.
Intro. 635 would address this inequity by extending the residential parking exemption to include Manhattan residents who lease motor vehicles for a term of one year or more. This bill applies only to leases with an initial term of at least one year, irrespective of the fact that the cumulative period for which a lease may be in effect is one year or more as the result of the right to exercise an option to renew or other similar provision.
I will now turn to the bill's sponsors; next to any other elected official wishing to speak.
I will now turn to the general audience. Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition to this bill. Is there anyone who would like to speak in support of this bill.
There being none, and for reasons previously stated, I will now sign the bill.
Under Local Law 115 of 1993, van companies seeking to provide commuter van services in the City must submit an application to the Taxi and Limousine Commission, which conducts a review of the fitness of the applicant, including a background and fingerprint check. The application is also reviewed by the Department of Transportation for the purpose of determining whether the proposed van operation meets statutory service criteria. If the agencies have approved the application, the application may be reviewed by the City Council for its approval or disapproval.
I have long supported the need for alternate transportation to complement the limited mass transit resources available in certain areas of the City. Commuter van transport has proven to be responsive to the needs of special markets and also has the potential for promoting economic opportunity in various communities.
Krystale Van Lines has fulfilled the public convenience and necessity criteria set forth by the Department of Transportation and has also been approved after careful review by the Taxi and Limousine Commission as fit to operate a commuter van service. The applicant has requested authorization for three commuter vans to provide twenty-four hour daily service between residential and commercial areas in the Flatbush section of Brooklyn. I expect Krystale Van Lines to provide a valuable service to Brooklyn residents by providing a new and convenient transportation resource.
I would like to commend Council Member Dear for his timely consideration of the bill and willingness to approve applicants that strive to serve New York City residents and visitors in a safe and convenient manner. I would also like to commend Council Member Clarke in supporting the approval of this applicant. Although only one applicant is before me today, I hope the Council will continue to promptly approve additional van service applications.
I will first turn to the sponsors of this bill and to any other elected official wishing to speak.
Now I will turn to the general audience. Is there anyone in the general audience to be heard in opposition? Is there anyone in the general audience to be heard in support? There being no one else to be heard, and for the reasons previously stated, I will now sign the bill.
Adolph Simon Ochs was born on March 12, 1858 in Cincinnati, Ohio to Julius and Bertha Ochs and later moved to Knoxville, Tennessee. Adolph's journalism career began when he was eleven years old and working as a paper carrier and office boy for The Knoxville Chronicle. Later, he performed odd jobs in the newspaper's composing room.
At seventeen, Adolph left The Knoxville Chronicle with a recommendation from its editor. After six months in the printing department of The Courier Journal in Louisville, Kentucky, he returned to Knoxville to work for The Tribune, a new newspaper. The Tribune's business manager persuaded Adolph and an editor to go to Chattanooga and start a newspaper. While the resulting Chattanooga Dispatch survived less than six months, Adolph later used his own savings and a loan to buy one half-interest in The Chattanooga Times, becoming its publisher on July 2, 1878.
The Chattanooga Times flourished under Adolph's leadership and he purchased the other half of the newspaper two years later. On February 28, 1883, Adolph married Effie Miriam Wise, book reviewer and art critic for the The Chattanooga Times. Together, they had a daughter, Iphigene Bertha Ochs.
In 1896, on his 38th birthday, Adolph learned that the nearly bankrupt New-York Times might be for sale. In debt himself and taking a gamble, Adolph bought the paper, acquiring controlling ownership on August 18, 1896. He published his first issue the next day, including in the editorial page his now famous publishing creed "to give the news impartially, without fear or favor, regardless of party, sect, or interests involved." Shortly thereafter, he added new sections and established the paper's slogan, "All the News That's Fit to Print." By the end of 1897, circulation had doubled and the newspaper's deficit had been dramatically reduced. Within three years of purchasing The New York Times, Adolph had led the paper to a position where its future appeared to be secure.
Adolph's innovations in printing and media technology and his reinvestment of much of his earnings into The New York Times allowed the newspaper to grow into a successful business. In addition, due to his rigorous standards of editorial integrity it became one of the most respected newspapers in the world. The newspaper received the first of seventy Pulitzer Prize awards in June of 1918.
Adolph was devoted to numerous philanthropic causes, including establishing "The Hundred Neediest Causes" column that runs in The New York Times every December.
Although he never completed high school, Adolph received honorary degrees from Yale, Columbia, Chattanooga, New York, Dartmouth and Lincoln Universities.
Adolph Ochs died in Chattanooga on April 8, 1935. In his will, Adolph stated his vision for The New York Times. He said it should be operated as "an independent newspaper, entirely fearless, devoted to the public welfare without regard to individual advantage or ambition, the claims of party politics or personal prejudice or predilection."
This Sunday, August 18th, will mark the one hundredth anniversary of Adolph Ochs's purchase of The New York Times. Accordingly, in memory of Adolph Ochs, this legislation adds his name to West 43rd Street between Broadway and Eighth Avenue, where the headquarters of The New York Times is located.
I will first turn to the sponsor of the bill, and then to any other elected official wishing to speak.
Now I turn to the general audience. Is there anyone in the general audience to be heard in opposition? Is there anyone in the general audience to be heard in support?
There being no one else to be heard, and for the reasons previously stated, I will now sign the bill.