NY1 reports (though they are probably re-reporting thisTimes article) that ‘Newsstand Owners’ (the NNOA, though they don’t seem to have a web presence) are suing the city to prevent implementation of Local Law 64, passed in 2003 (0569-2003A — and PDF
here). Local Law 64 is part of an omnibus effort to ‘clean up’ what is referred to typically as ‘street furniture’ (Newsstands, distribution boxes, benches and public bathrooms), a process that is still in the RFP stage.
The basic thrust of the legislation is the establishment of a city-wide franchisee that would assume responsbility of street furniture management, with the trade-off of allowing advertising (currently prohibited) in return for better facilities and the construction of public restrooms, though, notably, this is not required as part of the legislation, which covers only newsstands. When first proposed, the intention was not to disenfranchise current owners, but to require them to reconstruct their facilities based on a uniform design, and then surrender the ad space to the franchisee (who would be funding the bathrooms, which would also have advertising). The NNOA is suing because the legislation, due to more stringent restrictions of where facility can be placed, might mandate the closure of 20% (based on their estimates) of existing newsstands, even though the first paragraph of the legislation indicates there is a good chance the overall footprint of each would increase (need room for those ads!). So much for taking back the streets.
This initiative has been underway in one form or another for several years. You might remember the bathroom near City Hall, which was a prototype developed by JCDecaux, which came very close to getting the contract without competitive bidding (or, rather, a highly structured RFP that made it impossible for almost anyone else to bid). Wayne Barrett of the Voice busted the city on this, and they went back to the drawing board and came up with Local Law 64. Last year, Matt Taibbi gave a good overview of the JCDecaux fiasco and took a sharply critical stance of the new effort.
Whereas the prototype in City Hall Park seemed dandy to us (and we really like the public restrooms in Paris), the payoff, as it is currently structured, doesn’t justify the scale of this trade-off. The economy of scale being proposed, coupled with a rather timid qualification that any new designs must be approved by the art commission — which can only act under the rubric of guidelines set by the department of consumer affairs — means we may end up with another example of the mallification of our urban experience. Even though it may be yet another example where our irrational pride in idiosyncratic and often foolish urban traditions trumps efficiency, but with the prevelance of B&N and Starbucks handling the accessible bathroom issue, here’s to hoping the NNOA succeeds with its Bronx cheer to Local Law 64.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.
Sued as the News.
NY1 reports (though they are probably re-reporting this Times article) that ‘Newsstand Owners’ (the NNOA, though they don’t seem to have a web presence) are suing the city to prevent implementation of Local Law 64, passed in 2003 (0569-2003A — and PDF
here). Local Law 64 is part of an omnibus effort to ‘clean up’ what is referred to typically as ‘street furniture’ (Newsstands, distribution boxes, benches and public bathrooms), a process that is still in the RFP stage.
The basic thrust of the legislation is the establishment of a city-wide franchisee that would assume responsbility of street furniture management, with the trade-off of allowing advertising (currently prohibited) in return for better facilities and the construction of public restrooms, though, notably, this is not required as part of the legislation, which covers only newsstands. When first proposed, the intention was not to disenfranchise current owners, but to require them to reconstruct their facilities based on a uniform design, and then surrender the ad space to the franchisee (who would be funding the bathrooms, which would also have advertising). The NNOA is suing because the legislation, due to more stringent restrictions of where facility can be placed, might mandate the closure of 20% (based on their estimates) of existing newsstands, even though the first paragraph of the legislation indicates there is a good chance the overall footprint of each would increase (need room for those ads!). So much for taking back the streets.
This initiative has been underway in one form or another for several years. You might remember the bathroom near City Hall, which was a prototype developed by JCDecaux, which came very close to getting the contract without competitive bidding (or, rather, a highly structured RFP that made it impossible for almost anyone else to bid). Wayne Barrett of the Voice busted the city on this, and they went back to the drawing board and came up with Local Law 64. Last year, Matt Taibbi gave a good overview of the JCDecaux fiasco and took a sharply critical stance of the new effort.
Whereas the prototype in City Hall Park seemed dandy to us (and we really like the public restrooms in Paris), the payoff, as it is currently structured, doesn’t justify the scale of this trade-off. The economy of scale being proposed, coupled with a rather timid qualification that any new designs must be approved by the art commission — which can only act under the rubric of guidelines set by the department of consumer affairs — means we may end up with another example of the mallification of our urban experience. Even though it may be yet another example where our irrational pride in idiosyncratic and often foolish urban traditions trumps efficiency, but with the prevelance of B&N and Starbucks handling the accessible bathroom issue, here’s to hoping the NNOA succeeds with its Bronx cheer to Local Law 64.