"The Enquirer did more than scoop the planet. It shielded the populace from a blow-dried cretin and his enabling, cancer-stricken wife. The journalistic establishment now has a chance to reward the Enquirer with its loftiest prize. It won't."

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/robs_from_not_poor_rich_and_gives_3VbdC55x2MqceXv3ZhkadI/1

Enquiring minds are cheated out of Pulitzer

Robs from not-so-rich and gives to not-so-poor

New York Post

Last Updated: 7:14 AM, January 28, 2010

Posted: 3:06 AM, January 28, 2010

Paying New York's extortionate rent -- a preoccupation bordering on obsession for millions of city dwellers -- just got crazier. And for that, you can thank a loony lefty activist in a black robe. Let's give a big hand to meddling Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Emily Jane Goodman (right). She's a lady who's bent on ensuring that the savviest and best-connected New Yorkers continue to enjoy insanely cheap rents, while you and I get screwed. Rent regulation has long chipped away at the city's quality of life. It has ensured that millionaire Rep. Charles Rangel enjoyed four -- yes, four -- reduced-price luxury apartments that are the envy of Harlem. That is, until he was forced to give up just one. To explain the turmoil inflicted by Justice Goodman, I need only look back at my first rental in this city, an exercise in acute urban frustration. Then, I paid $900 a month for a two-bedroom apartment. My upstairs neighbor paid $300. "Rent control!" my landlord muttered. With those two words, he told me that my rent was destined to climb at a dizzying pace, while my neighbor, a lawyer with a grown daughter who couldn't be removed from her mother's place without a crowbar, would pay the monthly equivalent of dinner for four. On Monday, Justice Goodman tried to make sure that these maddening inequities continue well into the future. She declared that some 300,000 New Yorkers who live in rent-stabilized apartments were paying too much. She ordered rent reductions. And hundreds of millions in rebates for these lucky folks. How did this happen? It's no surprise that the ruling was made by Justice Goodman. What's surprising is how -- or why -- she keeps her job. Back in 1999, the judge changed from a jurist to a crusader for the downtrodden. She awarded tens of thousands of dollars to homeless AIDS sufferers. Why? Because the city was unprepared to meet their housing needs for a single night. But in 2008, she sent a bizarre missive to The New York Times: "After a career in public service, I regretfully say, I would not do it again," wrote the judge. "Philosophy and point of view led me to doing good instead of doing well, so I never expected to become rich. But now that I'm in my 10th year of a frozen judicial salary -- less than summer students are being paid at law firms -- I have concluded that whatever I may have accomplished for the public, I have wasted 25 years of my life by serving on the bench." She's still there. Her disastrous rent ruling concerns a 2008 decision by the Rent Guidelines Board. It said the majority of rent-stabilized tenants would see rent hikes of 4.5 percent. But those who paid less than $1,000 a month and have lived in those spaces at least six years were asked to pay $45 more. These rents were so low, $45 represented more than a 4.5 percent increase, if you can believe it. Goodman hit the roof. But the rent hikes were merely an attempt "to have some catch up. Lower-paying tenants were asked to pay a more proportionate share of maintenance of their building," the city argued. Sounds fair. Legal Aid lawyers sued. Which is what they do. In the end, Justice Goodman ruled that the increase on low-paying tenants must be rolled back. "She ruled the way the plaintiffs asked her to," said Gabriel Taussig, a lawyer with the city's Corporation Counsel. "We are very disappointed with the decision." The city plans to appeal. Rent regulation artificially drives up costs for those who can't maneuver their way into cheap apartments. They ensure that landlords can't meet spiraling expenses. But this judge has brought mass confusion and losses for landlords just trying to make a living. She's also seen to it that this city will remain a place where the haves thumb their noses at the have-nots. I'd suggest a career change for this Woman of the People. Enquiring minds are cheated out of Pulitzer Old Joseph Pulitzer is doing flip-flops in his grave. The National Enquirer, which practices provocative journalism -- just like old Joe did -- is about to be mugged. Investigative reporters toiling for the supermarket tabloid have pulled off a coup of epic proportions, saving this nation from the scoundrel who is John Edwards, and spurring an investigation that could land him in jail. But will the Enquirer win the Pulitzer Prize it so richly deserves? Not in my lifetime. During the last election, as reporters from The New York Times and Washington Post were busy patting their own rounded posteriors, the Enquirer proved beyond doubt that John Edwards fathered a love baby. The bombshell should have won praise, prizes and the best possible restaurant tables for Enquirer types. Instead, the story was met with utter silence from the "mainstream" media. Until last week, when Edwards 'fessed up. The Enquirer did more than scoop the planet. It shielded the populace from a blow-dried cretin and his enabling, cancer-stricken wife. The journalistic establishment now has a chance to reward the Enquirer with its loftiest prize. It won't. The administrator of the Pulitzer board has already nuked the idea -- on a technicality. He pointed out that, on its Web site, the Enquirer is called "the original celebrity entertainment magazine." Magazines, you see, aren't eligible for Pulitzers. This is a lame excuse, wrapped in jealousy. The National Enquirer deserves accolades, not scorn. The tabloid of record has been breaking major stories since the OJ Simpson trial. It deserves a seat next to the snobs. Look who's squawking Chirp, chirp. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand is mighty ticked at maybe-rival Harold Ford Jr. for calling her a "parakeet" who mimics the words of her master, Sen. Chuck Schumer. Gillibrand, who's also regularly called Schumer's "sock puppet," must be a glutton for pecking. It seemed to elude her that issuing "tweets" on "Twitter" complaining about Ford's "parakeet" comment was proof positive that she's a regular birdbrain. I can't wait for the egg-throwing to begin. Never too old for some frisky business The Tiger Woods sex-addiction fiasco has men of a certain age wondering: How do I get to be like Tiger? "What is a person supposed to do if he's in his 80s and he's still active sexually, and, of course, he doesn't have the finances to hire people to do something for him?" a reader asks. "How do you explain it if he has a God-given libido?" Consider yourself the luckiest, and busiest, man in the retirement home. Go get 'em, Tiger

Andrea Peyser

ENOUGH ROOM

January 30, 2010

Elite Refuse to Recognize Excellence

Robs from not-so-rich and gives to not-so-poor

No comments:

Post a Comment