Feds to Times Square: Take Down Huge Billboards or Lose Highway Money
Example No. Gazillion of the folly of centralized decisionmaking:
It is known as the “Crossroads of the World,” the “Center of the Universe” and “the Great White Way,” but Times Square could become like the “Black Hole of Calcutta” if the federal government has its way, CBS2’s Marcia Kramer reported Tuesday.
The feds say many of Times Square’s huge and neon-lit billboards must come down or the city will lose about $90 million in federal highway money.
“We’re going to let outsiders who sit in a cramped room and have nothing to do with our city as far as partaking in it on an everyday basis change something that means something to the whole entire world? That makes total sense, just like everything else the federal government does,” said Keith Watson of Flushing.
The edict comes from a 2012 law that makes Times Square an arterial route to the national highway system. And that puts it under the 1965 Highway Beautification Act, which limits signs to 1,200 square feet. It took the feds until now to realize that Times Square was included, Kramer reported.
Keith Watson from Flushing has it right. The entire concept of authorizing central bureaucrats to use giant money grants as a way to control what should be local issues is oppressive and badly misguided.
The solution, of course, is decentralization of decisionmaking to levels where the people making the decisions have an actual stake in the outcome.
Among the options the city is considering is to attempt to get an exemption from the federal government, Kramer reported.
Or getting an exemption.
New York City and Obama richly deserve each other. HL Mencken anticipated this by 80 years.
“Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.”
Mike K (d85405) — 5/7/2015 @ 7:38 amThe joyless righteousness of socialism.
Patricia (5fc097) — 5/7/2015 @ 7:54 amyes yes good and hard
plus it will help the polar bears
i been so worried about those lil guys
happyfeet (a037ad) — 5/7/2015 @ 8:11 amand how did Times Square become “an arterial route of the national highway system” in 2012? Was it to gain access to federal highway funds? Karma’s a b**ch.
crazy (cde091) — 5/7/2015 @ 8:15 amI hate hate hate hate hate hate exemptions and waivers.
JD (bb5ba5) — 5/7/2015 @ 8:59 amYep, crazy, and actually IAMHE (I am a highways engineer) and I’ll be you dollars to donuts that the city got them to make it an arterial route of the national highway system just so they could get that extra funding.
JNorth (5fe1bf) — 5/7/2015 @ 9:04 amAnyone who has ever been to Times Square can laugh at it being an “arterial route” to anything.
This is the same thing the feds did to enforce the 21-year-old drinking age law and the 55 speed limit. What a joke.
carlitos (c24ed5) — 5/7/2015 @ 9:09 amSomeone needs to explain to me how a street in Manhattan is suddenly “national highway”? I lived in big cities and even an idiot like myself knows the difference between a street and a highway. Dosen’t the Nationl Highway System?
Hoagie (58a3ec) — 5/7/2015 @ 9:11 am“The solution, of course, is to reduce the size & reach of the federal government…”
FTFY!
redc1c4 (589173) — 5/7/2015 @ 9:21 amBack when US 1 was the major cross country road in that neck of the woods, maybe so…
MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84) — 5/7/2015 @ 9:25 ambut that was long before 2012.
Since no one anywhere has said that a street in Manhattan is a “national highway,” you can relax.
carlitos (c24ed5) — 5/7/2015 @ 9:26 amreason #1896 to shrink the size of the federal government
heres how it works:
1. we send our $ to washington d.c.
2. they send it back for our use with all their stupid strings attached
sound awake (beb21b) — 5/7/2015 @ 9:30 amWhy are they even trying to force this? Who wants Times Square to go dark? What’s in it for them? New Yorkers need the tourist draw, so it’s not like New York is going to let it happen. Is someone trying to get their palms greased? What is the game here?
SarahW (6f3980) — 5/7/2015 @ 9:43 amIf you pay people to sit all day and either write regulations or figure out new ways to apply them, that is what they will do. This is a natural outgrowth of expanding federalism. These sorts of things cannot come as a surprise, given the 0bama’s approach to everything else.
Jimpithecus (a3c1bc) — 5/7/2015 @ 10:17 amI hate hate hate hate hate hate exemptions and waivers.
I agree. All laws should be enforced to the hilt. Especially stupid laws.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 5/7/2015 @ 10:19 amWhen people ask me my politics lately, I say “Federalist.” This is why.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 5/7/2015 @ 10:20 amCarlitos; when they made it an arterial route to the national highway system that is exactly what they said.
Kevin M; unless I’ve been totally reading you wrong all these years, I’d you are an Anti-Federalist though I generally think of it in the ~17-1800 definitions and the meanings seemed to have swapped over the years.
This is really not an issue of Federal over reach but of a state (New York) trying to game the system to get funding that they are not entitled to.
JNorth (5fe1bf) — 5/7/2015 @ 10:43 amBy “Federalist” mean in the sense of the modern Federalist Society. Government divided among localities, states and the federal government with things handled at the level they belong. So, billboards would not be a federal issue and the Coast Guard would not be New York City’s problem.
The anti-Federalists wanted a very loose collection of almost completely independent states, without so much as a monetary or customs union. What makes you think I’d want that?
Kevin M (25bbee) — 5/7/2015 @ 11:03 amThe whole idea of federal funding of local transportation is silly. If we are ever to rebalance the powers in this system, that kind of thing has got to go. Money for Interstate 10, fine. Money for a local commercial area? Nope.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 5/7/2015 @ 11:16 amIf Times Square falls under the purview of the feds because the eastern terminus of the nation’s first transcontinental highway, the Lincoln Highway, is 42nd St at Broadway then applying the scenic highway rules then this really is hysterically stupid, even for the Obama administration.
crazy (cde091) — 5/7/2015 @ 11:49 amThere seemed to have been a fair spread of opinions on size of government among the old Anti-Federalist, similar to the various big and small L libertarians these days. I do not believe Oliver Ellsworth or Roger Sherman wanted as weak a central government as, say, Patrick Henry. I could be off, I’m a bit rusty on the subject these days.
Essentially I just meant you always came across as supporting government functions to be as local as possible and in opposition to the over reach we have been seeing in the last several decades. No offense meant.
JNorth (5fe1bf) — 5/7/2015 @ 12:00 pmhere is the tale of the Black Hole of Calcutta
god bless america that’s just not acceptable
happyfeet (a037ad) — 5/7/2015 @ 12:07 pmI would bet they passed the original bill to get money, yes.
Another good example of “when you lay down with dogs, you get up with fleas.”
What is really creepy is some apparatchik combing through the regs trying to find a city to blackmail.
Patricia (5fc097) — 5/7/2015 @ 12:08 pmI would like to see every federal government agency that “gives” money back to the states shut down. DOT was created in 1966, the USDoEd was given to us by President Carter. I can understand Eisenhower’s thought of an interstate available for transport of military operations. Unfortunately, like all government organizations they don’t stay with their original purpose. They grow and to get around states rights of the constitution they blackmail states with purse strings.
We need to return to limited government.
Tanny O'Haley (c674c7) — 5/7/2015 @ 12:13 pm> law that makes Times Square an arterial route to the national highway system
I’m baffled as to what the justification for this law was.
aphrael (42bd3f) — 5/7/2015 @ 12:21 pm> Back when US 1 was the major cross country road in that neck of the woods, maybe so…
North of the GWB, Broadway is US highway 9 – but Times Square is far south of the GWB.
aphrael (42bd3f) — 5/7/2015 @ 12:22 pmEssentially I just meant you always came across as supporting government functions to be as local as possible and in opposition to the over reach we have been seeing in the last several decades. No offense meant.
And this IS the modern meaning of Federalism. Particularly this. As in the Federalist Society, which is a lot closer to Jefferson than Hamilton.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 5/7/2015 @ 12:25 pmI’m baffled as to what the justification for this law was.
A bucket o’ money.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 5/7/2015 @ 12:26 pmhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2chambers/post/congress-passes-two-year-transportation-bill/2012/06/29/gJQApmDtBW_blog.html
narciso (ee1f88) — 5/7/2015 @ 12:28 pmYou have an astute ability to act as if you don’t know what someone means when he says something.
Hoagie (58a3ec) — 5/7/2015 @ 12:36 pmLike you fail somehow to grasp that if it falls under the national highway system it, in fact, should be a highway? maybe? Or is whatever some bureaucrat ass says okay wit you. (yes, I meant wit).
not the onion
no this is where i live now
please to make the prayers
happyfeet (a037ad) — 5/7/2015 @ 12:58 pmDe-list the road that runs through it, and the problem is solved.
askeptic (efcf22) — 5/7/2015 @ 1:10 pmIf NYC needs more money for street maintenance, just send out the cops to hassle the “loosey sellers” again (still).
You want the feds to ban abortions gay marriage amnesty ;but not billboards?
censor (656358) — 5/7/2015 @ 1:10 pmThe locals should use the clause that states that a hiway encumbered by whoars can’t be declared “arterial”… only “seminal”
Colonel Haiku (148748) — 5/7/2015 @ 1:11 pmcensor is special.
Part of me feels bad that the Fede are trying to do this to a locality. Part of me thinks that they get what they deserve by trying to secure Fed largesse in this manner. Regardless, this is a subtle attempt to again expand the boundaries of what we will accept from the Fed govt. Obviously there is an outcry about this. But maybe their next target won’t get the same help from public opinion.
JD (3b5483) — 5/7/2015 @ 1:17 pmIt would be interesting to hear what actual limitations Perry would place on the Fed govt. we all know he doesn’t accept Constitutional limitations. It would be interesting to hear his limiting principles. Haha, ikr
JD (3b5483) — 5/7/2015 @ 1:21 pmHeesh, next someone will be saying that the Navigable Waterways must have water or be navigable and not be basements with rising damp or that interstate commerce must be trade or at least happen between states instead of covering making something in the garage for personal use. If you start that kind of straitjacketing of federal agencies then they won’t be able to regulate everything.
max (4fdf98) — 5/7/2015 @ 1:51 pmaphrael (42bd3f) — 5/7/2015 @ 12:22 pm
MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84) — 5/7/2015 @ 1:58 pmTo be clear, I have no idea where US 1 runs in the vicinity of NYC,
I do know where it runs in the vicinity of Philly, and it is reasonable that it was once considered a major cross-country route.
I was just trying to be humorous that once upon a time maybe Times square was on a major cross-country route, but if it was, it was a while ago.
Seems to me they ought to try to get it declared a “National Historic Landmark”. If they do, then it becomes illegal to tear it down.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Historic_Landmark
Steven Den Beste (99cfa1) — 5/7/2015 @ 2:04 pmHey, Scalia said that growing pot in your backyard is interstate commerce. Makes sense to me.
carlitos (c24ed5) — 5/7/2015 @ 2:21 pmAphrael, 42nd St feeds into the West Side Highway, which is part of the National Highway system, so it was designated an arterial road.
But the story is completely hyped up. Marc Scribner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute sheds light on what really happened, and who’s responsible.
Milhouse (bdebad) — 5/7/2015 @ 7:43 pmMilhouse, at 41, that link doesn’t seem to work.
aphrael (42bd3f) — 5/7/2015 @ 7:51 pmIs this the link, Milhouse?
DRJ (e80d46) — 5/7/2015 @ 7:55 pmtry this link
max (4fdf98) — 5/7/2015 @ 7:57 pmThat’s . . . what I thought, based on the story I linked.
I don’t see why the story is “hyped up.”
Patterico (9c670f) — 5/7/2015 @ 8:01 pmYeah, not sure what happened to my link.
Milhouse (bdebad) — 5/7/2015 @ 8:02 pmIt’s hyped up because 1) No regulator has ordered NY to take down the billboards, and no regulator intends to — they intend to work something out; and 2) If a regulator had issued such an order he would not be running amok, he would be doing exactly what Congress told him to do. It’s Congress that ran amok.
Milhouse (bdebad) — 5/7/2015 @ 8:04 pmI agree that it’s Congress run amok, and of course we have to have an “exemption” because this is a public and obvious example of the folly of removing local decisionmaking. My point is that the folly continues to exist even if we sweep this one embarrassing instance under the rug.
Patterico (9c670f) — 5/7/2015 @ 8:10 pmCongress is embarrassing.
DRJ (e80d46) — 5/7/2015 @ 8:28 pmDRJ – Congress S U C K S
JD (3b5483) — 5/7/2015 @ 8:34 pmI disagree. There should be no exemption. Rule of Law, in all its glory. You will never get rid of bad laws if you keep covering for them. If someone has to patch it, it should take a bill from Congress to do so.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 5/7/2015 @ 10:06 pm“Work something out”; that means bribes, concessions, favors.
Otherwise it would just continue overlooked.
I supposed hey ould dmand some phony baloney, superfluous and unecessary bow to the gods of carbon control…LEDs, solar panels, or whatever energy startup scam needs a favor. Or, use these billboards made by our better friends in China or where ever.
Worst and unlikely but I could we it gaining….some control over the appearance and message content of private advertising..mandatory PSAs, promotions of public policy or programs…
Any exemption will come at the highest price that can be got.
SarahW (6f3980) — 5/8/2015 @ 6:30 amThe real solution is a Constitutional amendment:
Ken in Camarillo (061845) — 5/10/2015 @ 10:03 am“Congress shall not condition any funding decision upon compliance with a directive which is outside the scope of powers explicitly granted to the federal government by this Constitution. Any funding for activities outside the scope of these powers shall be apportioned among the several states according to their population.”
If you don’t think my suggested Constitutional Amendment goes far enough, here is another option:
Ken in Camarillo (061845) — 5/10/2015 @ 10:19 am“Congress shall not appropriate funding, nor shall any agency of the federal government provide funding, for any activities outside the scope of powers explicitly granted to the federal government by this Constitution.”